Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLEFIELD) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

BANGOR MARKET BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN DISTRICT TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL (By Order)

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 17 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 18 June at Seven o'clock.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 17 June.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (BRIGHTON WEST PIER) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Cross-border Security

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that a satisfactory level of cooperation in cross-border security is being maintained.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I am satisfied that co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and those in the Republic has become more effective during the past year, with significant results. I am determined that the impetus should be maintained.

Mr. Farr: To what extent is that cooperation being threatened by lack of liaison between the police and Army authorities in Belfast? What new instructions in that regard will be given to the successor of the retiring security coordinator, Sir Maurice Oldfield?

Mr. Atkins: Co-operation between the RUC and the Army has reached a high level, and I am entirely satisfied with it.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that a further car bomb exploded in Market Hill in the southern part of my constituency only two hours ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that that bomb was probably manufactured in the Irish Republic? Bearing in mind that bomb incident and the major gun battles on the frontiers of South Armagh in the past few weeks, how can the right hon. Gentleman continue mouthing platitudes about increased co-operation?

Mr. Atkins: I am aware of the car bomb that exploded in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about three-quarters of an hour ago, although I do not have precise details of the damage caused. I was asked whether co-operation between the security forces north and south of the border is at a satisfactory level. I believe that I am right in saying that it is much more effective than it was. It can never be said to be completely effective until the terrorist activities have been suppressed.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that terrorist activities will never be suppressed until we have full co-operation from the Irish Republic? No doubt the Secretary of State is satisfied, in his ivory tower at Hillsborough Castle or Stormont Castle, but will he accept that many ordinary soldiers and policemen are. far from satisfied that the Government are taking appropriate steps to rout out the terrorists operating from the Irish Republic?

Mr. Atkins: That is not what the security forces tell me. They say that co-operation between the two security forces is at a higher level than they have ever known. They believe, as I believe, that progressively the evil of terrorism will be suppressed.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, although he may be satisfied with bordei security and co-operation with the Irish Republic, the widows of county Fermanagh and the other border counties are not? Would not his time be better employed sealing the border effectively so that the IRA cannot cross at will?

Mr. Atkins: No, Sir.

Mr. John: Can the Secretary of State indicate what proportion of recent incidents relate to cross-border activities? Does he agree that, instead of hon. Members indulging in generalised attacks on the Government of the Republic, they should bring forward specific instances of lack of co-operation if that is what they want rectified?

Mr. Atkins: I agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the earlier part, I cannot give him a figure on the proportion of recent incidents, but there is no doubt that attacks continue to be mounted across the border and I am convinced that it is by the two security forces, North and South, working together that that can best be prevented.

Irish Republic (Foreign Minister)

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to meet the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has

any plans to meet the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have no immedate plans to do so.

Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State next meets the Foreign Secretary of the Republic, will he discuss with him the land owned by the Gaelic Athletic Association which is being used by the British Forces as a helicopter base at Crossmagien?

Mr. Atkins: The last time that the Foreign Secretary of the Republic and I met we discussed that matter and I was able to give him a date when the Army will no longer require any of the land owned by the GAA.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State accept that as I have said many times—though the Ulster Unionists seem to laugh at the idea—the solution to the problem of Northern Ireland is not a security solution, important as that is, but a political one? Is he aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) and I tabled our questions in order to ensure that discussions go on between the relevant parties in Northern Ireland and the Republic? In view of the many attempts that are being made to put forward new policies, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that discussions will continue to find the ultimate political solution which will make the security solutions irrelevant?

Mr. Atkins: My business is to discuss with the political leaders in the Province ways of making the political advance that both they and the whole House desire. I do not accept that I ought to discuss those matters with Ministers of the Republic, though, as I have said in the House before, because they are such neighbours it is only prudent to keep them informed of what is happening.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If view of certain remarks of Mr. Lenihan, are toe Government considering with the Government of the Republic the institution of machinery for the British Isles to further co-operation between the two States therein, without prejudice to the sovereignty of either?

Mr. Atkins: When the Taoiseach met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 May, they agreed that there is a unique relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that they will be seeking ways of giving effect to the uniqueness of that arrangement. My primary concern is to discuss with the political leaders in the Province how we can make political advance in what is a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wm. Ross: What business is it of the Government of the Irish Republic where Her Majesty's Forces operate from within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Atkins: The question that I was asked concerned the GAA football pitch in Crossmaglen. It is the business of the Government of the Republic and the Ulster branch of the GAA what we do with that land.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What!

Mr. Atkins: Representations had been made to Ministers in the South who asked me what was happening. I told them what was happening. We are able to return to the GAA in Cross-maglen part of its territory that we have been using in recent months.

Integration

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take steps to accelerate the constitutional integration of the Province within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: No, Sir. Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority of the people of Northern Ireland so wish. But the policy of the Government is to transfer powers to locally elected representatives in accordance with the principles set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the "Working Paper for a Conference "—Cmnd. 7763—published last November.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the different constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom gives rise to hope among the IRA and the citizens of the Irish Republic that one day they will be able to detach Northern Ireland from the

United Kingdom and unite it with the Irish Republic? Does he agree that one way to reduce the turmoil that is currently taking place in the Province would be to put beyond doubt that Northern Ireland is, and will always remain, part of the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend undertake that any proposals that he brings before the House will make Northern Ireland more integrated with the United Kingdom and more like the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than less like it?

Mr. Atkins: I said in my original answer that Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority of those who live there so wish. I have said that on many occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the House and elsewhere. I hope that it is now established beyond doubt.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that we in the Liberal Party support his policy of trying to restore powers to the people of Northern Ireland to look after their own affairs as much as possible and we hope that he will stick to his guns on that issue while he is Secretary of State?

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Home Robertson: In view of the Government's manifesto commitment to review the government of Scotland, will the Secretary of State accept that there will be deep resentment among Scottish Members if the Government bring forward constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland before making progress on the Scottish question?

Mr. Atkins: Being responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland is quite enough for me, without getting involved in Scottish questions.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Is it the Government's policy to integrate the Irish Republic with the United Kingdom?

Mr. Atkins: My understanding is that that is not the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of the Irish Republic.

Gas Industry

4. Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his


estimate of (a) the total cost and (b) the cost to public funds of the discontinuance of the gas industry in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): Total capital costs associated with closure of those undertakings which have decided to cease supply of piped gas are estimated to be of the order of £78 million. The Government are committed to a scheme of assistance towards these costs. The details of the scheme are well advanced and I hope to be able to announce the complete package shortly.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the basis for the original assessment and decision has been transformed by the staggering burden of cost—I think that the figure given by the Minister represents only part of it—and by the discovery of fresh resources?

Mr. Shaw: I do not consider that what I have announced discounts the original basis on which the decision was made. The estimated cost for the pipeline today is about £120 million, compared with the rundown cost that I have announced. As regards the discovery of alternative resources, there is not an immediate prospect to enable me to justify a review of the decision.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost that he has announced, plus the grant that he would have got from the EEC, would have been enough to establish a link with the national grid? Will he remember that the 50 per cent. grant that has been promised for the change of appliances will go only to those who are not able to change their appliances without the grant, because it is the working-class people of Northern Ireland who use gas for domestic purposes?

Mr. Shaw: An EEC grant would have been at only about 40 per cent. and that factor was taken into account in arriving at our original decision on the non-viability of the project. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about a possible percentage of compensation, I must remind him that neither I nor the Government have made any official statement on the matter and none will be made until we have completed the current investigation.

Mr. Fitt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the change from gas to other forms of energy will bring great hardship to poverty-stricken people, particularly in Belfast, but in other areas as well? As the people had no say in the decision to end the gas supply for Northern Ireland, should not the Government bear the full cost of the change to other forms of energy? The people had no say in the decision and, therefore, should not be asked to pay anything.

Mr. Shaw: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision was an announcement by the Government not to invest in a gas pipeline. The decision to discontinue piped gas supplies has been a matter for the undertakings. With regard to discussions on those who are disadvantaged, I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's strong view that they should be specially considered in any arrangements we make for compensation.

Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that a detailed study of the Northern Ireland gas industry is about to be published by the Northern Ireland Gas Employers Board following a thorough study by consultants of international repute? When it is published, will the Minister study it carefully and allow the House a full debate on the question?

Mr. Shaw: I am obviously extremely interested in any publication offering new information on this project. No doubt this will be considered carefully by those concerned. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the question of a debate is not a matter for me.

Solid Fuel

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions have taken place between his Department and the National Coal Board regarding the use of solid fuel in the Province.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Following the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22 November 1979, I met the senior marketing executive of the National Coal Board on 29 January 1980. We had a wide-ranging discussion on the coal situation in Northern Ireland. My officials continue to be in contact with the National Coal Board and the Northern Ireland coal trade and I


remain satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to meet requirements.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in this area of the United Kingdom market forces tend not to operate and the Government poke their nose into every convenient hole? Has the hon. Gentleman noted the recommendations made by the world coal study suggesting that between one-half and two-thirds of additional energy will need to be supplied by the coal industry? Will he ensure that coal becomes more established in those parts of Northern Ireland industry for which he is responsible, recognising the fact that when markets for coal are lost, pits shut and never reopen?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Northern Ireland is heavily dependent upon coal supplies and is a prime user of coal for energy. My answer indicates the prospects for increasing the market. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland will still require the bulk of its supplies to come from the National Coal Board.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister agree that the welcome improvement, both for transportation and the marketing of solid fuel in Northern Ireland, is in no way inconsistent with or inimical to the development in the Province of other sources of energy, where appropriate.

Mr. Shaw: I agree entirely with that point.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister appreciate that Ulster people feel they are treated as second class citizens because the cost of lighting and fuel is higher than in the rest of Great Britain and the quality of the coal, although more expensive than in Great Britain, is lower than that available in other parts of the United Kingdom? What action does he intend to take to remedy that situation?

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a consumer council is available to investigate complaints of this kind. With regard to the quality of coal, the last indication I had was that complaints were directed at coal imported from the United States and not to coal from the National Coal Board.

Mr. John: Will the Minister accept that the family expenditure survey showed that families in Northern Ireland spend 50 per cent.

more on light and heat than their counterparts on the mainland? Does not that indicate two problems? The first is the problem of domestic heating. Will he bear in mind that coal from Great Britain is likely to prove more successful and give a better thermal value? The second problem is the cost of generating electricity. The frequent and constant rises in oil prices are making what appeared to be a good choice 10 years ago a very uneconomic one now. Bearing in mind the dual firing now being arranged at Kilroot power station, will the Minister arrange for a comparative study of generation costs between coal and oil at present prices?

Mr. Shaw: With regard to the first part of the question, I accept the crucial importance of seeking to maintain in the Province energy prices that are bearable. I accept that, in many instances, they are not bearable. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the recent coal price increase of 10·7 per cent. is comparable with that in certain other parts of the United Kingdom.
With regard to his second point, the dual firing at Kilroot is still at an investigation and recommendation stage and no decision has yet been taken. I accept that this is one reason why the thorough review of energy that we have set in hand is crucial to the future development of the Province.

Constitutional Development

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to produce his detailed proposals for constitutional changes in the Province.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks considering devolution of power to Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about constitutional development relating to the Province.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects of constitutional advance in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The Government have made good progress in developing their proposals and they will be published shortly. They will be based on the principles set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the working paper (Cmnd. 7763) and, I hope, will be the subject of the widest possible discussion. I am confident that they will be seen as a constructive and even-handed approach to the question of how power is to be transferred to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland. In the meantime, the present arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland must continue and an order extending the interim period of direct rule under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is being laid today.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to bring forward one Cabinet proposal for a Government of Ireland Bill that may or may not prove acceptable to the House? Or does he intend further alternative proposals and further public discussion? Is he aware that some of us feel that it is time for a decision?

Mr. Atkins: The proposals that we shall bring forward will be more narrowly focused than anything we have discussed before. There will be an opportunity for further discussions and I hope that will be taken by all parties.

Mr. Foulkes: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that, since the Westminster representation from Northern Ireland will soon be on parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be uproar in Scotland if he goes ahead with proposals for devolution of power for Northern Ireland but nothing is done for Scotland? As a member of the Cabinet, the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape responsibility. Will he initiate discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House to make sure that these discussions continue in parallel?

Mr. Atkins: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and all other Cabinet Ministers.

Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of people, knowledgeable of the Province, both in this country and in Ireland, feel that the publication of a discussion paper at this time would not be helpful and that it would be better for the Government to continue with secret bilateral discussions and produce a White Paper in the autumn? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his intentions of publishing a Green Paper this month?

Mr. Atkins: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope he will find that the paper we publish will indicate clearly the direction in which the Government feel that it would be right to move. There remain some areas for discussion. I am sure it is right to continue talking with the parties to see whether we can get a high level of agreement on how to move forward.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since local government is central to giving the Northern Ireland people more control over their own affairs, is my right hon. Friend aware, from the Commissioner for Complaints, or anyone else, of widespread abuse of power by district councils? If he is, will he be ready to deal firmly with it?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, of course I shall. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any precise details about the number of matters referred to the Commissioner for Complaints, or other bodies, in the past few months or year, although I know that there have been some. I can, of course, give him details, and I shall do so in writing.

Mr. Stanbrook: Are the Government simply to publish another discussion document, or is it their intention that, if the proposals they bring forward are accepted by a majority of the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, they will be implemented?

Mr. Atkins: We shall publish the Government's proposals on the way that we think it is right to move forward. I hope that we can get a high level of agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland


about the right course. We shall then come to Parliament which, in the end, has the final say.

Mr. Fitt: Will the Secretary of State refute the reports in the press recently that the Government are prepared to reinstate a majority Unionist Government? Does he recognise that if the Government attempt to do that the scheme will be doomed? Does he accept that while there might be urgency over bringing about a devolved system of Government, any rushed attempt, at a half-baked arrangement which would be defeated, because of the procedures and time limits applicable in the House, would be a bitter pill and a disaster for Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State take whatever time is necessary to ensure that any plan put forward has some hope of success?

Mr. Atkins: I am sure that it is right to take whatever time is necessary to secure the agreement of the Northern Ireland people, to whom any arangements will apply. The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. I advise him to wait for our paper.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to consult the Northern Ireland population as well as the people who purport to represent the people's views? Is he aware that if he does not do that the potential for further disaster will be ever present? I wish the right hon. Gentleman's proposals well. May I express the hope that he will match his proposals with the common sense approach which I suggest?

Mr. Atkins: I agree that we should seek to ascertain the views of people throughout the Province. It would ill-become me to suggest that any hon. Member does not represent the people who elected him. Nevertheless, I take the point. That is why I said that I hope for the widest possible discussion.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State said that the Green Paper will indicate the direction in which the Government hope to move. After so many months of discussion with the few parties with whom he decided to discuss the future constitution of Northern Ireland, and after being in office for 12 months, is not it high time that

the Government were able to make definite proposals for constitutional progress in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Atkins: We are anxious to make proposals which command general support. I have to tell the House that there is not total unanimity of view in Norhern Ireland about the way in which we should go.

Mr. Flannery: May I repeat the gist of the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)? Does the Secretary of State accept that, bearing in mind the communalist policies of Northern Ireland, if there is no power-sharing, and if all is left to the Ulster Unionists, Northern Ireland's position will remain as it is?

Mr. Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study our paper with great care.

Mr. Porter: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to put the minds of some people at rest by indicating whether his proposals will be on a provincial basis through the reimposition of Stormont—which would be disastrous—or are likely to be on an English, Welsh or Scottish county council basis, which would give some hope for the future?

Mr. Atkins: I believe that our proposals will have close reference to the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John: I hope that the Secretary of State is right in his last remark. When the paper is published will the House have reasonable time to study it before it is debated? Will the Secretary of State direct his attention to the editiorial in last Monday's Financial Times which makes it clear that the chances of a political initiative succeeding could be diminished while the economy is falling apart? Does he agree that too many people ignore the economic dimension of the constitution? I hope that the Secretary of State will not.

Mr. Atkins: I take the point. The economic life of Northern Ireland has a great bearing on everything that we seek to do. However, I quarrel with the hon. Member when he says that the economy is falling apart. It is not. I agree that Parliament must have an opportunity to debate the proposals. I shall talk to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about that.

Security

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Win. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since I last addressed the House on 8 May, 43 people have been charged with serious crimes, including seven with murder and one with attempted murder. One of those charged with murder is alleged to have been involved in the bombing of La Mon House on 20 February 1978 in which 12 people died. The four people to whom I referred on 8 May, who were arrested in the Antrim Road area of Belfast, have been charged with the murder of a soldier. Also during the period, 14 weapons have been recovered together with 2,012 rounds of ammunition.
One part-time member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and four civilians were murdered by terrorists during the period, and a number of people, both civilians and members of the security forces, were injured. William Latimer of the UDR was shot while off duty in Newtownbutler last Saturday. Anthony Shields from Crossmagien was abducted and murdered and his body left surrounded by booby-traps in a particularly callous way. Councillor John Turnly of Carnlough was cold-bloodedly shot down in front of his family. Those responsible for all these outrages deserve and will get our outright condemnation.
Damage to property has been comparatively light, though I understand that a car bomb in Market Hill, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), exploded this afternoon and caused extensive damage to a number of houses. Two weeks ago great inconvenience was caused to the people of Belfast by a widespread campaign of bombings and hoax bombings. The security forces are to be commended on the efficient way in which they handled this difficult situation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep revulsion last weekend in Northern Ireland at the

callous, cold-blooded shooting and killing of Councillor Turnly, a member of the Lame district council and, at the other end of the Province, at the killing of Mr. Latimer, a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
Is the Secretary of State aware that Mr. Latimer is the fiftieth Protestant who has served in connection with the security forces to have been murdered in that area? Is he further aware that the murderers escape across the border and that so far only one murder has been solved, with the conviction of one person, since people who commit these dastardly deeds have safe sanctuary in Mr. Haughey's Republic? Will he take steps to deal with the border roads which provide an easy escape for the men who carry out these dastardly deeds?

Mr. Atkins: All the murders arouse feelings of revulsion and horror in the House and the Province. The security forces are continuing, and will continue, to do everything that they can to prevent them and to bring to justice the people who commit them. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my answer. In the last four weeks 43 people have been charged with terrorist crimes, seven of them with murder. I hope that that shows those who contemplate committing murder that they have a decreasing chance of escaping justice. No matter how long ago the murders were committed the police will continue to seek out the murderers and bring them to justice. I am glad to say that they are having increasing success. I am ready at any time to consider suggestions that particular roads across the border should be closed to inhibit the movement of terrorists.

Mr. Ross: is the Secretary of State aware that his answers this afternoon serve only to confirm that there has been no real change in security for several years. It is not time to consider new measures to deal with the hard core of terrorists who operate in Northern Ireland and to consider seriously the sealing of the border in a meaningful way?

Mr. Atkins: I accept and share the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman but he must not mislead himself, or the House, by saying that there has been no change in the situation over the past three or four years. There has been a change. The situation is still deplorable. There


are still too many crimes and murders but, increasingly, the expertise and efforts of the security forces are containing the activities of the terrorists.
It is the belief of the Government that the course upon which we are embarked is the right one. That course is to apprehend the terrorists and bring them before the court. As the hon. Gentleman knows, to seal the border is virtually—though not totally—impossible. I am prepared to consider anything that we can do to inhibit the movement of the terrorists while, at the same time, allowing the flow of legitimate traffic.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that prison officers still seem to be subject to attack? There was another attack recently although I know that additional security measures have been taken to protect prison officers. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that those officers are receiving all the attention that they reserve from his Office?

Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. There was a campaign a few months ago to kill prison officers. This is a completely inexplicable problem. The prison officer is a dedicated servant of the State, whose sole business is to deal with people who have been convicted by the courts. It is no concern of his why people are in prison. That they are in prison is his only motive for doing his job. I think that attacks on prison officers are particularly cowardly and deplorable.
There was a lull when, apparently, prison officers were not the subject of attack. Another officer, however, was attacked the other day. I hope that the terrorists will realise that this kind of activity arouses disgust everywhere and will do nothing to weaken the determination either of the Government or the prison officers to get on with their job.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the percentage of terrorists recently convicted who have previously been sentenced for terrorism?

Mr. Atkins: The information must be available. I do not have it in my head but I shall willingly send it on to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fitt: As there is a tendency to believe that all the murders in Northern

Ireland are committed by the IRA—and one must recognise that the vast majority of them are committed by the IRA—will the Secretary of State put it on record that it is the belief of the Northern Ireland police that the people who murdered Councillor John Turnly were members of a Loyalist para-military association?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Terrorist activity is not confined to the Provisional IRA. But a terrorist is a terrorist and murder is murder whoever commits it. That is the basis upon which we operate.

Coastal Containers Limited

Mr. J. Enoch Powll: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he contemplates taking in view of the withdrawal of Coastal Containers Ltd. from Warrenpoint.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The withdrawal of Coastal Containers' cross-channel service from Warrenpoint is a matter, primarily, for the Warrenpoint harbour authority. But I have discussed this matter with the authority and I understand that the authority is continuing its efforts to attract other companies to the port to make use of the facilities which are no longer being used by Coastal Containers Ltd.

Mr. Powell: Does not this regrettable setback to the expansion of this port provide an opportunity for a review of its future on a wide scale, taking account of the potential attractions of the port for cross-Channel services of a passenger and car character?

Mr. Shaw: I admit that a withdrawal on this scale—roughly 20 per cent. of the volume of traffic—is a matter of concern to me and to the users and management of the port and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this will allow a wider review of the future of the port. But the immediate task is to seek to replace those customers who have been lost with new ones.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Why did Coastal Containers leave Warrenpoint? Was the reason financial? If it was, what aid can the Government give to attract the firm back?

Mr. Shaw: Coastal Containers Ltd. left Warrenpoint due to a decline in economic


traffic on the one hand and the prospect of the closure of the port of Preston on the other. It is not the policy of the Government to intervene in commercial decisions of that character.

Cross-border Roads

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will review his policy on cross-border roads with a view to increasing the degree of control over the traffic using them.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): The Government are fully aware of the need to exercise a measure of control, in the interests of security, over cross-border traffic. The measures intended for this purpose are kept under constant review.

Mr. Miller: In the light of the concern about the use of cross-border routes will my hon. Friend look again at the position to see whether control could be improved either by moving police and Customs posts forward or by blocking roads as was done in 1961 and 1962?

Mr. Alison: The number of closures of cross-border roads is kept under constant review. A substantial number of them are already closed and we keep the matter under exactly the kind of review asked for by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister of State pay particular attention to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) to the effect that all of these roads were, effectively, closed in the earlier campaign of 1956–1962? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I shall be responding to the invitation of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will be furnishing him this very day with a list of those roads complete with map references?

Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman's list will, of course, be considered with great interest and sympathy. Decisions in this context are taken largely on the advice of those responsible for security, namely the police and the Army. We have to evaluate the balance of advantage and disadvantage that they lay before us.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETSHAM

Ql. Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Betsham.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Betsham reject completely the policy announced by the Labour Party to the effect that a future Labour Government will force students in the independent sector to pay the full cost of university fees? Does not my right hon. Friend regard that policy as malicious and unfair?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) had a confrontation—if that is the right word—with my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. My right hon. and learned Friend, normally a mild-mannered man, used some phrases which I could not better. He said :
I should have thought that that proposition is so vindictive, vicious and literally stupid as to be beyond the belief, even of the hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 10 June 1980 ; Vol. 986, c. 289.]
I could not better that myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is taking part in the meeting of the European Council in Venice.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that clause 16 of the Employment Bill, as at present drafted, meets in full the Government's commitment with regard to secondary action expressed at page 10 of the Government's election manifesto? If, as has been pointed out by many people, it does


not will the Government look at the wording of the clause again?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think it is fair to put my answer in the terms of the point made by my hon. Friend. Since the publication of the Bill the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Express Newspapers v MacShane has shown that the legislation of the previous Government created virtually unlimited immunity for secondary action. An immediate response to that was needed and in clause 16 of the Bill the protection of the law for those not concerned in a dispute has been greatly strengthened.

Mr. Kaufman: That is a scandal.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) may think that it is a scandal but it happens to be a fact. I have stated the facts and I cannot see the scandal in that. I should like to make it clear, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's allegation about a supposed scandal, that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to publish a Green Paper later this year which will review the complicated question of immunities. That is the position and that is my answer to my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Home Secretary undertake to make sure that the Prime Minister is supplied with a copy of the text of the speech made yesterday in another place by his right hon. and noble Friend Lord Thorneycroft on the proper limits that he believes should be set to pay increases for Members of Parliament? Will he invite the Prime Minister to compare that speech with her own speech yesterday about there being no guiding lights and no incomes policy? When will the sensible people in the Cabinet, such as the right hon. Gentleman, assert themselves in order to ensure that we have a sustained and agreed incomes policy with which to defeat inflation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman believes that I am sensible. The answer to both of his questions is "Yes. Sir."

Mr. Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement by Dr. Sakharov that every spectator or athlete who goes to Moscow for the Olympic Games will be lending indirect support to Soviet military

policies? So that there can be no possible excuse for any British athlete or member of the Olympic Committee keeping his head in the sand on this issue, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for us to have full and accurate information about the atrocities in Afghanistan?

Mr. Whitelaw: At the risk of again causing what the right hon. Member for Ardwick says is a scandal, it would be reasonable to read what the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) said on 17 March. I am entitled to read that because I am quoting what the right hon. Gentleman said
In short when the Olympic Games commence in July".—[Official Report, 17 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 50.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be fail all round. The right hon. Gentleman had better paraphrase the quotation.

Mr. Whitelaw: To which I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that after all these years I should have known much better.
I was going to say that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar made it very clear that he thought that, if there were to be an Olympic Games and if it was fully attended, all those who were there would have to realise that the guns of Afghanistan would be ringing in their ears at the time.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Home Secretary have time to ask the Prime Minister to go to the House of Lords to have a word with Lord Carrington who is to produce another meeting of Olympic officials to make a yet further vicious attack on British Olympic athletes? Will he ensure that the Prime Minister asks for Lord Thorneycroft to be present at the meeting, to explain how his £150,000 contract with Lillywhite-Cantabrian for the provision of track equipment for the Moscow Olympics can be squared with his continued attack on the athletes? Is this not yet another case of pure hypocrisy and double standards by Conservative leaders who are busy lining their pockets while condemning athletes for competing in Moscow?

Mr. Whitelaw: This point has been argued at considerable length. Those who are now deciding to go to Moscow must examine whether their actions are in the best interests of their country. That is


a decision for them. I do not think that they are in the country's best interests.

Mr. Skinner: What about Thorney-croft?

Mr. James Callaghan: Whether they are or not, will the Home Secretary tell us the difference between athletes going to Moscow and business men—whether Conservative peers or not—increasing their trade with that country?

Mr. Whitelaw: The question of Conservative peers or not does not arise. The question of trade certainly does, but I would have thought that that had also been argued. Many people in this country have said, and will continue to say "Why should we give the Russians the propaganda success of the Olympics in Moscow for no good reason? "

Mr. Michael Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that deep concern is growing throughout the country that the present terms of clause 16 of the Employment Bill are not adequate to satisfy the reasonable and necessary pledges that we gave at the election? In view of the late production of the clause, will the Government look at it once again to see whether they can get it right this time, since it is so important to most of us?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend said. I have promised that my right hon. Friend will produce a Green Paper. I shall certainly call to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Home Secretary take time today to confirm or deny the story in the Financial Times this morning that suggests that the Government are about to announce a complete stop—a moratorium—on all local authority capital expenditure which will affect most grievously council building of every

type—house, schools and perhaps hospitals?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be a brave Minister in any Government who spent his time confirming or denying all the stories that appear in the newspapers. I read the story. I know nothing about it. I do not understand what it said.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend know, however, of the Soviet Union (Temporary Powers) Bill that I introduced yesterday? Will he accept that our athletes might be more open to persuasion if the Government accept the Bill which is based on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note my hon. Friend's comment and I note his Bill. I have nothing further to add this afternoon.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: In regard to the Cabinet meeting that is to take place on 16 July, will the Home Secretary understand that monetarist jargon never sounds convincing coming from his mouth? Will he, rather than repeat this jargon, trust his instinct and accept that the true discussions in these matters is of politics, not phoney economies?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is for the right hon. Gentleman and the House to decide what sounds convincing coming from my mouth. I fully support and am strongly in favour of the policies being followed by Her Majesty's Government at the present time.

Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend inform the Prime Minister that the Polish Government have instructed their agents in this country not to pay cash for goods, but to offer barter, and often to barter in textile goods, in complete contradiction to the good faith in which those goods were sold to Poland?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall certainly see that it is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. No one coming from my part of the world in the North can doubt the troubles and anxieties that cut right through the textile trade. They are justified. I am most anxious to make sure that anything that can be done to help should be.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the letter


that has been sent to the Prime Minister asking that any action should be taken to save the textile industry, which the right hon. Gentleman knows so well? Will he also—we shall be convinced by him—in view of the uncertainty and alarm that will be caused by the reports about the halting of council house building, give an undertaking that there will be no such halt, bearing in mind that I million people are now on waiting lists for local authority council houses?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a meeting yesterday with various hon. Members about the textile industry. She undertook to follow up the various points that they made to her. In answer to the second part of this question, since I do not accept in any way what was said in the article, it is not for me to comment upon it.

Mr. Callaghan: I am not asking the Home Secretary to comment. I am asking him to give an assurance that the Government have no intention of halting council house building.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have no evidence to the effect that that is so.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when the Government intend to honour their election pledge to curtail immigration from the New Commonwealth?

Mr. Whitelaw: We took various measures in the Immigration Rules and I have nothing further to add at present.

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Foulkes: Has the Home Secretary read the report given by the Leader of the House to the Bow Group earlier this week and the predictions by industrialists that there will be many more redundancies and liquidations if the Government do not change their economic policies? When will the right hon. Gentleman and the other sensible men in the Cabinet overcome the monetarist fanatics?

Mr. Whitelaw: Of course I read the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I thought that it was a very good speech.

Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the press reports today about the threatened strikes by NALGO? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that trade union leaders should call strikes for the sole purpose of thwarting the wishes of a democratically elected Government on the issue of public expenditure? Does he agree that that action should be condemned by both sides of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: Trade union leaders are answerable for their actions. If they seek to bring out their members on strike for the purpose my hon. Friend has mentioned, I do not think that they will achieve any good, either in the interests of their members or those of Britain.

NUCLEAR EXERCISE (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Mr. Rodgers (by private notice): Mr. Rodgers (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether American forces stationed in Britain, and assigned to NATO, will be involved in the major nuclear exercise announced today and planned for the near future, and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): No, Sir. It is a routine exercised announced a month ago, which involves United States-based strategic forces.

Mr. Rodgers: Despite the brief reply by the Secretary of State, does he appreciate that many who are loyal to the Alliance believe that in present circumstances it could be the wrong exercise, in the wrong place and at the wrong time? In reply to another private notice question on Monday the right hon. Gentleman said that American computers were coupled with computers in Britain. In those circumstances, will not the American exercise involve American forces in Britain? If so, will joint decisions be involved? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how decoupling can occur?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether, at a time when the world is poised in a state of great anxiety and when there are doubts about the authority of the American leadership, that exercise should take place, and whether it does not carry grave risks for us all?

Mr. Pym: On the contrary, it is extremely important that all the forces of all the members of the Alliance should be involved in training exercises. It is a routine exercise, and there have been many like it. It involves United States-based strategic forces. That is the position. It is entirely right that they should be involved. In the present uncertain state of the world, it is necessary for all military forces to be up to a full state of training.

Mr. Kershaw: Was not my right hon. Friend's reply rather short? Should he not have included a space in his reply for an expression of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) the Opposition spokesman on defence, who did not even know that the Labour

Party Left wing was to give a party political broadcast last night advocating the betraying of our responsibilities and the betraying of our allies?

Mr. Pym: I rather doubt that this is the moment to reflect upon a rather inaccurate, and certainly misleading broadcast.

Mr. Dalyell: In the Adjournment debate that I have been granted for tomorrow, on the issue of what went wrong on Tuesday 3 June and Friday 6 June, will the Secretary of State be in a position to give the explanation that he promised to the House on Monday, or is it too early to expect such an explanation?

Mr. Pym: I doubt whether I can give that explanation tomorrow. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility lies with the United States Administration and not this Administration.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) linked the American and British deterrents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements to modernise the British nuclear deterrent, for example by Operation Chevaline, were made by Labour Ministers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I visited California recently I was informed that Labour Ministers had initiated the discussions with a view to the development of cruise missiles in Britain? In those circumstances, is it not the most nauseating humbug for the Labour Party in opposition to seek to frighten people about the weapons that the Labour Party in office was seeking to bring in to Britain?

Mr. Pym: We must continue to hope that the agreement that has existed between the two Front Benches on major strategic matters involving the national interest will continue.

Mr. Hooley: Was there any ministerial consultation within NATO about the exercise? If so, what views were expressed by the United Kingdom?

Mr. Pym: As it is not a NATO exercise, the question does not arise. The exercise refers to United States strategic forces.

Mr. Speaker: I shall call three more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exercise is welcome evidence of the determination of the United States to maintain its defensive capability in a high state of alert? Does he further agree that that capability is important to the whole of the Western Alliance—contrary to the views expressed by the Labour Party during last night's broadcast, which practically tended towards unilateral disarmament?

Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the exercise. However, I say again that there is nothing special about it : it is a routine exercise. It is one of an ordinary series and should be looked at in that light. It is important to know and to understand, and for it to be understood by any potential adversaries, that we are in a state of great readiness and preparedness.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Secretary of State explain why it is necessary for Britain, alone of all the NATO Powers apart from the United States of America, to have an independent nuclear capability when other NATO countries do not find that necessary?

Mr. Pym: I think that you, Mr. Speaker, might call me to order if I were to set out, as I have on a previous occasion, the arguments for the Government's belief that it is highly desirable for the United Kingdom to have its own nuclear capability. That is probably beyond the scope of the private notice question.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents, and others who are affected, should be reassured by the fact that regular routine exerises take place? Does he further agree that if they did not take place, the whole deterrent effect of the nuclear weapon would not exist? Is it not sad, therefore, that the exercise is not wholeheartedly supported by the Opposition?

Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Cryer: Does not the Secretary of State think that it is highly inappropriate, after seven months in which there have been three computer errors leading to some stage towards a nuclear confrontation, that America should embark, yet again, on a nuclear tactical exercise?

Should not the right hon. Gentleman use his offices to tell the Americans that the world is looking not for more nuclear deployment but for a lower level of nuclear deployment and genuine negotiation with the Russians for multilateral disarmament to give us a secure nuclear-free future?

Mr. Pym: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—and no one likes the mistake that occurred last week more than he does—an unremitting effort towards arms control is a major pillar of our defence policy. At least we share that with the Opposition Front Bench. It is misleading of the hon. Gentleman to try to pretend otherwise. While we receive no response from the Russians, it is necessary to maintain adequate defences. As long at that is necessary, it is equally necessary to train and exercise those forces. That is the purpose of the routine exercise.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of current world tension and the recent computer mistake, is it not insensitive and unhelpful for good international relations for the United States to launch a major nuclear exercise? Or is it a Presidential ploy in election year? What are the Government doing to point out to the United States that this is the wrong time for that sort of exercise?

Mr. Pym: The whole thought behind that question is a suggestion that the exercise is in some way a special exercise. As I have already told the House, it is not a special exercise but a routine exercise. It is important that all elements of the forces are trained and that they exercise their capabilities. It is wrong to describe it as a nuclear exercise. It relates to strategic forces based in the United States. My only attitude towards that is one of wholehearted encouragement.

Mr. James Callaghan: Mr. James Callaghan rose——

Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition object if I first called the last Back Bencher?

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the United States has had more than enough nuclear exercises already this month? Will he indicate to President Carter that


he does not need to behave like a cowboy just because he faces a superannuated cowboy in the presidential election?

Mr. Pym: I think that the campaign—if I can call it that—which seems to have quite a lot of support among Labour Members, to misrepresent this exercise, is extraordinarily unhelpful to the national interest, the Alliance, and world peace.

Mr. Callaghan: On disarmament, if Chancellor Schmidt's visit to Moscow should produce an indication that the Soviet Union is ready to enter into negotiations to withdraw the SS20 missile in exchange for the abandoment of the deployment of cruise missiles, would the British Government be ready to support such an initiative?

Mr. Pym: That raises a major and important issue, which obviously goes widely beyond this question. I do not think that this is the moment to reflect upon that. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, attached to the NATO decision in December for this deployment was a positive arms control initiative, which has been rejected. It was not taken up, and so far there has been only a negative response from the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union changes its tune, that is a totally new situation, but even the fact that it has refused to negiotiate so far has in no way prevented us from continuing to sit round a table and discuss with the Soviet Union in Vienna and Geneva what the possibilities are, so far without any result. If there is a response, full consideration will naturally have to be given at that time to what our response ought to be.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the necessarily curtailed nature of the Secretary of State's replies—because question and answer must necessarily be rather laconic—may T give notice that tomorrow you have given me an Adjournment debate so that we can return to these questions in more detail, which is surely more satisfactory?

Mr. Speaker: I did not grant the Adjournment debate for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman chose the subject.
Business Statement, Mr. Callaghan.

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.

Mr. Thomas: It is related to this question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Thomas: I am grateful Mr. Speaker. Under successive Governments this House has established and financed through the Estimates and the Office of Manpower Economics a deliberately independent Review Body on Top Salaries. That body is chaired by Lord Boyle, and is currently looking at——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It does not sound to me as though this is related to the business for next week. No hon. Member should jump the queue with points of order until after business questions. I think that I know the hon. Gentleman's point of order, because he gave me notice of it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Debate on the report of the Brandt Commission on a motion for the Adjournment.
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill.
Motions on the Redundant Mine-workers and Concessionary Coal (Payments Scheme) (Amendment No. 2) Order ; the International Development Association (Sixth Replenishment) Order ; and the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lome) Order.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Debate on the disposal of Ferranti, on an Opposition motion.
At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment.
Motion on the Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on the decline of industry in the West Midlands, on a motion for the Adjournment.
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: Debate on the Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Callaghan: There is very great interest in the Brandt Commission's report We regret that the Government were not ready to table a positive motion, which would have enabled us to express our view. We should have liked a positive expression from the Government, which would at least have enabled us to welcome the report and to endorse its central theme, which called for renewed efforts to halt the world-wide escalation of arms expenditure and called on the Government for an increase in the transfer of resources from the richer to the poorer nations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider changing the decision to hold this debate on a motion for the Adjournment, so that we can test the opinion of the House on the motion to which I have just referred? I believe that such a motion would receive widespread support.
Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been calls for a two-day debate on the Brandt report. If that is not possible, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has been able to consider the representations for extending the time for that debate—say, for two hours—in order to enable more Members to speak?
Finally, there have been two disturbing reports that I have asked the right hon. Gentleman to bring to the attention of his colleagues with a view to statements next week. One is the report that the Government are considering halting all council house building. It would be a disgrace if that were so. This matter can be cleared up only if the Government give a clear view on it. Secondly, there are reports that London fares are to be increased by 40 per cent. in a period of 12 months. If so, that is totally unaccep

able, and we must ask the Government to make a statement of policy on both those issues.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen the reports on those two matters, and I shall certainly bring them to the attention of the responsible Ministers.
I have already announced that the debate on the Brandt Commission's report will be on a motion for the Adjournment. I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman made but I think that the sentiments that he has expressed—with which I have a great deal of sympathy—can be expressed adequately in the debate. I am happy to say that in response to representations that I have received from a number of hon. Members, apart from the official Opposition, we can extend this debate until midnight, thus giving an extra two hours on this vitally important subject for the future of the world.

Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those answers, including his confirmation of the extension of time for the debate on the Brandt report. I am also glad to hear that he is broadly in sympathy with the sentiments that I expressed. In view of the international interest in the report, would it not be preferable if there were a positive expression of opinion by the House on an agreed motion? The motion to which I have referred is one that we intended to table. I am not trying to commit him, but the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not find himself opposed to it in substance. Let us please express our views as a House instead of as individual Members.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is much that is attractive in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but there are policy questions within the Brandt report that are still being considered within the Government and that would make it difficult to follow that sort of action at this stage.

Mr. Emery: May I remind my right hon. Friend—although I am sure that he does not need reminding—that the Lord Privy Seal gave the House an assurance that a statement would be made before the Vienna conference, which has already started—[HON. MEMBERS : "Venice".]—the Venice conference—that a Government statement on the Brandt Commission's report would be made to the House.


That has not been done. It is important that it should be done before Monday, because if it is made purely in the form of the Minister's opening speech the whole of the debate will be limited, as hon. Members will have no time to study the Government's position. As that assurance has been given, will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that the Government's position is known before the opening speech on Monday? There is still time for that to be done.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that there is some confusion here, not only between the cities of Venice and Vienna but because two summits are involved. There is the European summit and the world summit. The Brandt Commission report is more relevant to the world summit—the second summit. I have undertaken that there will be a debate in the House on the commission's report before the world summit. The opening statement will be made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and that will contain a clear statement of the Government's attitude.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement to the House at an early date about his failure to publish information about British companies paying salaries below the poverty datum line to their employees in South Africa? If that is too difficult, will he remind the Secretary of State for Trade that he could answer specific questions on the subject at Question Time next Monday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have read the exchange between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman that was extensively reported in today's issue of The Guardian. I hardly think it will be necessary to draw this to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but in response to the hon. Gentleman's request I shall do so.

Mr. Neil Thome: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 691, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) about the effect upon Russian dissidents of the boycott of the Olympic Games?
[That this House congratulates British industrialists and others who have withdrawn financial support for the British Olympic Team to go to Moscow, and

does not doubt that this action will he equally welcome to dissident families in Russia such as the Rosensteins, who are either being forced by the Soviet Authorities to leave Moscow or are going voluntarily, because they are nervous of reprisals by the Soviets.]
In view of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend consider holding an early debate on the matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that an early debate is necessary, because the Government's views on the matter are already well known in the House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on the matter recently. We support the sentiments expressed in that motion. We welcome the British industrialists' action, as no doubt do those people in the Soviet Union who believe, as the Government believe, that the Games should be boycotted. The Government's policy on the Games was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the debate on 17 March, and also by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in two Adjournment debates, on 27 March and 21 April. I do not consider that another debate on the subject is necessary. We want a positive response from the British Olympic Committee.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Will the Leader of the House find time next week, or very soon, to discuss the industrial situation in South Wales with regard to the critical situation confronting the steel, tinplate and coal industries?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know about the grave unemployment situation in Wales. The Government have never disguised the fact that they believed that in the short term unemployment would rise. They have shown their concern for the Principality by making additional money available for the provision of factories and industrial sites in the areas affected by steel closures. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Shotton area was upgraded and given special development area status last December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will announce the outcome of the review of assisted area status in South Wales very soon. I hope that that will be of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the Leader of the House received any representations about the debate on the Royal Navy? Is there any possibility of the date being put back a week or two, in view of the fact that some hon. Members will be attending a maritime conference in the United States on that subject?

Mr. Skinner: Why not go on a Sunday?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the answer to that is "Never on Sunday". These matters were discussed through the usual channels, and no objections were raised. I am sorry if there is a clash, but I am afraid that this situation arises from time to time because Members of Parliament are very busy people.

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider the proposals of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers on licensing law reform? In view of the wide social interest in this subject, would it be possible to have a debate on the matter, bearing in mind that the Errol report disappeared into limbo about 10 years ago? I declare an interest in this subject, not only as an avid consumer but because I have an interest in two licensed houses in the Midlands.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I wish that I could say the same. I cannot promise an early debate, but I shall certainly draw the concern of my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Molyneaux: In view of the plight of the textile industry, would it be possible to have an early debate on those EEC regulations that are mainly responsible for it?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Within the last few days my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a delegation from the textile industry. The problems of the industry were fully discussed and an undertaking was given that we would seek adequate safeguards for the textile industry on the expiration of the multi-fibre arrangement in 1981. Therefore, I do not think that an early debate is necessary.

Mr. Coleman: Returning to the point made by myright hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the cessation of

council house building, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement to the House on the position in Wales?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the same question as was put by the Leader of the Opposition, but within the different context of Wales. I shall pass to the Secretary of State for Wales the representations that I shall make to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Budgen: In view of the Government's continuing difficulties in controlling public expenditure, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the procedure used in considering Supplementary Estimates, so that the House, if it so wishes, may reassert its historic role of controlling Supply?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Government have had considerable success in reducing and controlling public expenditure. That is a separate point from the question of the control by this House of Supply. On that point, I am more sympathetic to what my hon. Friend said. We need to examine this matter when we have disposed of the recommendations of the existing report on procedure. The next item on the agenda seeks a report on the way in which the House can more effectively discharge its historic role of controlling Supply.

Mr. Armstrong: Bearing in mind the complete collapse of morale and confidence in the Northern region about the future of manufacturing industry, confirmed by the Secretary of State for Industry in his statement on Monday on regional policy, and the announcement today that the steelworks in Consett will close in September, destroying a community, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the matter before manufacturing industry in the Northern region reaches a point of no return?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There may be an opportunity for a regional debate. I cannot promise such a debate next week. I read the account of the closure of Shot-ton, and I appreciate—[HON. MEMBERS : "Consett."]—Consett. I am aware of the difference between Consett and Shot-ton. A slip of the tongue is not necessarily a slip of the mind. However, this


is a matter for the British Steel Corporation to decide, and not for the Government.

Mr. Trippier: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 603, asking that the time limit on speeches, restricted to 10 minutes in Second Reading debates, should be extended to other principal debates in the House, other than Report stages of Bills?
[That this House believes that the present rule in operation that backbench speeches between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Second Reading Debates are limited to not more than 10 minutes should be extended to all other principal debates of the House, other than Report stages of Bills.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider extending that experiment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That suggestion has occurred from time to time, but the whole purpose of introducing it in a limited way was to assess the feelings of the House on how it would work. As far as I can hear from the response to that suggestion, there does not seem to be overwhelming support for it.

Mr. Parry: The Leader of the House may have seen early-day motion 674, standing in my name, which has been signed by 158 hon. Members.
[That this House deplores the proposal of the Liverpool Area Health Authority (Teaching) to close the heart unit at the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital in spite of massive public opinion against the closure : and calls upon the Secretary of State to reject the Health Authority's proposal.]
As a matter of urgency, will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on proposed hospital closures in Liverpool? Such closures are affecting the aged, children, the partially blind, the blind, and women's care. These closures have met with massive objections from the general public. The area health authority is slashing health services in the city centre of Liverpool.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The closure of the pediatric cardiology unit at the Liverpool hospital is a complicated matter, but the closure of the hospital as such will be

subject to consultation with all interests, in accordance with the agreed procedures, at the appropriate time. Those procedures provide for ministerial involvement where there is local objection to a proposed closure that cannot be resolved locally.

Mr. Cormack: As the Soviet Union's actions constitute a far greater violation of human rights, humanity and international law than even the despicable acts of the Iranians in detaining the American hostages, will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the Soviet Union (Temporary Powers) Bill, which I introduced yesterday? Will he also bear in mind that it is perfectly drafted, as it is based entirely on the Act in relation to Iran that was recently passed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is obviously a man of faith. I cannot guarantee or offer an early debate on this subject. However, I think that by the private enterprise that my hon. Friend has demonstrated he has shown his concern and the concern—I am sure—of many others in the House about the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a full day's debate on unemployment as it effects the whole of the United Kingdom, so as to give every right hon. and hon. Member an opportunity of bringing forward schemes whereby some of us may do something about reducing the high numbers of unemployed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot promise an early debate. The Government are continually aware of unemployment problems. It is no part of our policy to have permanent high unemployment. At the same time, we have always made clear that in the process of rationalising British industry and making it competitive, a period of short-term unemployment is unavoidable.

Mr. Adley: May we have an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement on her return from Venice—after which, Mr. Speaker, some of us will hope to catch your eye? In view of the quite proper priority that that conference is attaching to the attempt to find a way forward and a solution to the Palestinian issue, may I repeat my request to my right


hon. Friend, particularly in the light of the tremendous change of attitude by the House over the last 10 years, that we should give the Government an opportunity to listen to the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly Back Benchers? The issue remains one of the most sensitive and dangerous in the world.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on her return from the Venice summit. The Palestinian point, among others, will no doubt be relevant to the questions that you allow, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. George Cunningham: In view of the manifestly unsatisfactory state of the law left by the House of Lords' ruling today, whereby criminals may be legally entitled to retain the fruits of their crimes, will the Leader of the House indicate whether the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will make a statement about the Government's intentions to correct the law?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have received no request for a statement from either of my right hon. Friends but I shall certainly raise the matter with them to see whether they would like to apply to make a statement in the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is there any chance of extending the debate on the Royal Navy for perhaps an hour, in view of the great interest in the maritime strategic position in the Indian Ocean?
Has my right hon. Friend noted that there is now a clear majority of Members who have signed the early-day motion on whales?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to ban the import of all whale products and to work to secure a world wide ban on the slaughter of whales.]
Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to respond, as he ought as Leader of the House, to the manifest wish of a majority of hon. Members?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have seen the early-day motion and I have noticed the large number of signatures to it. What is perhaps even more important than my responding is that the Government have

responded very positively and are seeking to implement the aims of the motion.
As for the debate on the Royal Navy, I have heard my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I suggest that it be pursued through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss through the usual channels, with his ministerial colleagues, the appropriate Officers of the House and the trade union representatives of those who are employed on the staff of the House, ways and means of providing a fully subsidised canteen service for the low-income earners whom we employ, in parallel with that which is enjoyed by departments of the Civil Service and comparable with that which is available in commercial undertakings? There is an urgency about this matter.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is more a matter for the House of Commons Commission than for me. What we have endeavoured to do is to put the catering of the House on a commercially viable basis. If there are problems such as that which the hon. Gentleman has raised they should be considered by the Commission. I shall see that that is done.

Mr. Skinner: On the question of world summitry at Venice, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the cost to the British taxpayer of sending so many people to that summit? We all appreciate that, according to The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister is a guest of the Italian Government, but the rest of the entourage is likely to be charged about £100 a night. When she was Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister used to say quite often that summitry was a waste of time and money. Perhaps we may have a full explanation, so that we can understand more clearly the Government's position on public expenditure, especially bearing in mind that for the pensioners the same Prime Minister has invented a new calendar year of 54 weeks, thereby depriving them of £13.70 per head. Will it be the old-age pensioners who will foot the bill for this summit in Venice?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The issues to be discussed at the summit are of such paramount importance for the future of this country, Europe, and the world that it is obvious that those who are there should have adequate back-up services. I suppose that the value that one gets from a summit meeting depends on who actually represents Great Britain at the summit.

Mr. Straw: When will the promised debate on the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget take place? With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's undertakings to the House yesterday on the responsibility of the Lord Privy Seal to answer questions on EEC matters, when will there be a statement on that matter?

Mr. St. John-Slevas: I think that the most convenient moment may be when the full documentation is available. This matter is being pursued through the usual channels.

Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Leader of the House use his influence to ensure that the next time the Home Secretary deputises for the Prime Minister at Question Time he does not reduce the 15 minutes to a farce, as he did today?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry that I did not answer the second point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I shall bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. [Interruption.] I must be left to answer questions in my own way.
With regard to the answering of questions by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in place of the Prime Minister, I thought that it was a virtuoso performance, in which he commended a recent speech of mine. I think that it added to the lightheartedness of the occasion in a characteristic way.

Mr. Spearing: The Leader of the House has referred to the importance of the Venice summit. Why, then, did he restrict to one and a half hours last Tuesday's important debate on EEC institutions, following the report by the Committee of Three, leaving no fewer than nine hon. Members wishing to speak and an unresolved Question at the end? Will he now consider resuming that adjourned debate? In relation to the budget contribution and the question raised by

my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is the Government's intention to have a debate on that issue, and not just to call it to the attention of the Lord Privy Seal?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Those matters must be discussed through the usual channels. I cannot give off-the-cuff undertakings when the wishes of the Opposition as well as those of the Government are involved. I am sorry that some hon. Members were unable to speak in the debate. Unfortunately, it occasionally happens that not all hon. Members can be called. However, that is no justification for having a repeat performance of every debate in which that occurs.

Mr. English: Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is being emasculated by his civil servants? In a rush of open government, the Minister promised to send me a letter explaining how his Department calculated the cost of the CAP to the United Kingdom. There have been various interesting reviews in bank journals, by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and in The Sunday Times. However, I have not received the letter. It has not been placed in the Library. The assurance has not been carried out.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Knowing him, I should have thought that he would carry out such an operation the other way around.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the Prime Minister makes reckless speeches every week saying that there will be no U-turns, and as she has not made a speech about the situation now facing industry, may we have a two-day debate on the decline of British industry? We have received strong representations from industrialists and trade unionists.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have already announced that there will be a debate on British industry next week. I cannot promise a two-day debate on anything at the moment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are two short debates today. Many hon. Members wish to speak in those debates. I hope that points of order will be reasonably brief.

RATE SUPPORT GRANT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not have raised a point of order if I had not regarded it as very important. I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for not giving you sufficient notice. I was unable to advise you that I wished to raise a point of order before 2 o'clock this afternoon. I also advised the Scottish Office that I intended to raise a point of order relating to the exchange that took place at Question Time yesterday, between the leader of the Liberal Party, the Secretary of State for Scotland and me. The questions concerned the amount built into the rate support grant settlement for Scotland, in relation to salary increases. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) asked :
To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that his allocation of 13 per cent. in the rate support grant ties the hands of the negotiating Committee?
There was more to the question, but that was the relevant point. The Secretary of State replied :
The figure that the right hon. Gentleman quoted is not correct, and in any case the allowance made in the rate support grant order was greater than that, and it also took into account the allowances for the Clegg awards."—[Official Report, 11 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 530–31.]
In column 532, the Secretary of State said that the allowance built into the rate support grant was greater than 13 per cent. In column 537, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—repeated the Secretary of State's assertion that the allowance built into rate support grant was greater than 13 per cent.
I am concerned not merely about the content of parliamentary answers but about subsequent events. I have in my hand a report that appeared in today's edition of The Scotsman, entitled, "Government firm on teachers' pay." The article reveals that following yesterday's

exchanges in the House at Question Time the Secretary of State issued a statement to The Scotsman in which he said :
He is therefore not committed to any action in respect of the outcome of any such arbitration. What he has said to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is that he has set cash limits in the rate support grant settlement to take account of pay increases and that this limit (13 per cent) "——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I waited to see what the hon. Gentleman would say. It is clear that he has not mentioned a breach of our rules on which I can rule. I thought that I would let the hon. Gentleman make that clear, and he has now done so. It is unfair to the House if an hon. Member seizes an opportunity to put a point of view because he is indignant about a reply that he has received.

Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. All hon. Members know that it is not in my nature to take advantage of the House. Yesterday, the Secretary of State deliberately misled the House of Commons. He sought to correct the matter by issuing a press statement. I raised a point of order because I wished to ask you whether it was in the best interests and traditions of the House for a senior Minister to conduct himself in that manner.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ministers must take responsibility for their replies.

MEMBERS' SALARIES

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to wait until the end of any queue to receive your guidance. During successive Governments this House has established and financed—through the estimates of the Office of Manpower Economics—a deliberately independent Review Body on Top Salaries. That body is chaired by Lord Boyle. It is currently looking at the request of the Leader of the House and of the Prime Minister—in pursuit of a clear commitment given to the House—for the appropriate updating of hon. Members' salaries for the past year. I should like you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the issue and to report to the House. I am not at all clear whether this is an issue of order or of privilege. Is it proper for attempts to be made to influence Lord Boyle to pursue that remit—which he was asked to do independently—in a way that


may suit the chairman of the Conservative Party or some other figures? Should he not discharge his responsibilities and commitment to the House in an independent way?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to write to me giving the details I shall consider whether privilege is involved. I cannot rule on the information that I have just been given.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That this House, aware of the desire of disabled people to live independent lives in their own homes and of the economic advantages for the nation of allowing them to do so, deplores the Government's planned reduction in personal social services ; rejects the Government's decision to reduce the living standards of large numbers of the poorest disabled people by cutting the value of invalidity benefit by at least 5 per cent. from November ; and calls upon the Government to reverse policies that conflict with their manifesto commitments to the disabled and which are both self-defeating and inhumane.
The House is often said to be at its best when discussing the problems of the least fortunate in our society and, by common consent, this debate is about people who are among the poorest and most vulnerable in Britain today. It is a debate that we have provided for in Opposition time and, if anyone thinks the debate is long overdue, let me emphasise that it would not be taking place at all if it had been left to the Government to arrange.
We have three main purposes in the debate. First, we want to put it to the House and to the country that being mean to disabled people—many of this Government's policies are studiedly mean—is self-defeating as well as inhumane. Secondly, we want to make clear our contempt for a Government who give higher priority to tax cuts for the strong and fortunate—indeed to those at the very top of the income scales—than to protecting even the invalidity benefits of people who are below the tax threshold and whose working lives have been cut short by long-term sickness and disability.
Thirdly, we wish to challenge the Government to answer questions which so far they have either avoided or evaded. For example, are the cuts that hurt the disabled reluctantly imposed by the Government as a sad necessity, as the Secretary of State seems to say, or are they welcomed as a matter of important principle, as the Minister with responsibility


for the disabled seems to insist? "Difficult, unpopular and unpalatable" was the Secretary of State's description of the cut in invalidity benefit for hundreds of thousands of disabled people. Yet the Minister with responsibility for the disabled seems not only to find it palatable but to delight in rebuking people who, although they may use stronger and more fitting language than the Secretary of State, agree with his right hon. Friend in criticising this very shabby cut. Will the Minister at least go as far as his right hon. Friend's criticism of the cut and describe it as "unpalatable"?
As the motion says, disabled people mostly wish to live in their own homes ; and there are economic advantages to the nation in helping them to do so. That is why it is so utterly wrong that spending on some of the most essential services for the disabled should be cut by proportionately more than other services. If the Minister questions the scale and severity of cuts in the personal social services as they affect disabled people, let him consult the reports of the very disturbing surveys undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Personal Social Services Council, the Spastics Society and other widely respected organisations that have been studying what has been happening since this Government came to power. Even the CBI, in a report of a county survey, has talked of cuts that cause real hardship.
The findings of all these surveys form a devastating analysis of the effects of the cuts on chronically sick and disabled persons. In analysing what are the Government's unkindest cuts of all, they make the most damning indictment of Government policy. The surveys report cuts in spending on home adaptations, on home helps, on meals-on-wheels, on telephones for home-bound disabled people who are at risk, and on the provision of holidays that can relieve stress on families as well as enrich the lives of disabled people.
At the conference of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation (RADAR), which he and I addressed on 21 May, the Minister said that he wanted disabled persons to have an annual holiday under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. He nods his assent today. What action is

he taking, then, against those who are placing disabled people and their families under increasing strain by cutting back on the provision of holidays under the Act?
A passage from the report of one of the surveys sticks in my mind particularly. It said that staff cuts at old people's homes in one locality meant that some elderly disabled people would be unable to get up at weekends, as there is no one to dress them. Does our economic survival really depend on causing humiliation and distress to elderly disabled people in this way? In another locality, the mayor's carol concert had to be cancelled because of the cuts. Even the unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge might have taken exception to that. Although Essex's rates are 5p below the national average, and it spends 12 per cent. less on its social services than the average shire county, disabled people in Essex are faced with the payment of 25p a day for attendance at day centres. Is that acceptable to the Minister?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As always, I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's remarks carefully and with the greatest sympathy and respect. But does he really help his case by over-stating it? If a mayor's carol concert was abandoned because of the cuts, there is something wrong with that mayor. He should have been able, by way of some other funds, a charity or good will, not to have deprived those people. The right hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate.

Mr. Morris: I am not exaggerating. I am quoting from the report of an important survey that was undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Services. The directors reported faithfully what has been happening in localities throughout Britain. The case that I quoted was by no means an exception to the rule of vicious cuts as disclosed in the report. I agree with the hon. Member that many of these cuts beggar description. But the House of Commons should be fully aware of what is happening. If a charge of 25p a day in Essex is not acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman, what action did he take after Peter Large of RADAR drew it to his attention in his important letter of 3 June? Is the Minister aware that the proposed charge has been bitterly condemned in


the county as being more akin to the morals of robbing the poor box than to any well-considered policy of a modern political party? Will he now say unequivocally in this debate that he regards the proposed charge by Essex county council as unacceptable and morally indefensible?
In a parliamentary reply on 2 May, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had already made it clear to local authorities that he expected—
… priority to be given to the needs of the seriously disabled, even at a time of great financial stringency."—[Official Report, 2 May 1980 ; Vol. 983, c. 720.]
Every study of cuts in personal social services has shown that many local councils looked for quick savings and, in the words of the Personal Social Services Council, there is
… little evidence of any attempt to protect vulnerable groups
including the seriously disabled. That may look like straight defiance of the Minister, but will not the offending local authorities reply that he is the very last person to ask for priority for the disabled in times of financial stringency? They may well ask what sort of priority he is giving to disabled people who live below the tax threshold on invalidity benefit? The answer is that, from November, he is cutting their living standards by at least 5 per cent. in a brutal act of discrimination against disabled people. So how can he possibly expect anyone to take him seriously?
The Minister's total lack of credibility is self-inflicted. Speaking in the House of Commons as a Labour Minister only a few years ago he said :
…if sacrifices are to be borne, the broadest backs must bear the heaviest sacrifices."—[Official Report, 15 March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 622.]
Now he says, as a Minister in the present Government :
The disabled cannot expect to be exempted from the sacrifices necessary…
Either he was wrong before or he is wrong now. If he was walking upright before, he is walking on his head now—and that can be a very compromising posture. What he must not try to claim is that he was right then and that he is still right now, first, because his two statements, imply deeply contradictory philosophies, and, secondly, because no one will believe him.
By saying that the disabled cannot expect to be exempted from sacrifices, the Minister implies that everyone, including the disabled, is carrying an equal burden under the present Government. Yet that is palpably untrue. While cutting the services and cash help available to the disabled, the Government have crammed £1,500 million into the pockets of the richest 7 per cent. of taxpayers. That is not equality of sacrifice. It is barefaced bias in favour of the strong and fortunate at the expense of many of the most unfortunate people in our society.
I referred earlier to the letter sent to the Minister on behalf of RADAR by Peter Targe on 3 June. In that letter Mr. Large strongly repudiated the Minister's claim that disabled people were being asked to bear
… burdens equal to everyone else.
He told the Minister that reductions in benefits for the disabled, allied to increases in VAT on essential aids, appliances and services—which non-disabled people do not need—and an inflation rate of more than 20 per cent., made a mockery of the Minister's claim about equal burdens. He went on to say that disabled people are, in fact, hit twice by the Government's policies :
… once as ordinary citizens and a second time on account of their disabilities.
RADAR is not the only major organisation to make that point. The report of the Spastics Society's recent survey says, and I quote from the June 1980 issue of "Spastics News" :
… rising food prices, increased rent and rates, higher charges for gas, electricity, fares and petrol are hitting the handicapped harder than anyone else in the community.
Some of the effects of this in individual cases are spelt out in the report. I invite the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to listen to these examples. We are told, for example, of the case of the 76-year-old mother doing the washing by hand for her doubly incontinent 45-year-old son because she cannot afford a washing machine. Then there is the 50-year-old woman in a wheelchair, living alone, frightened of the central heating bills and having to borrow money from the home help to pay for the shopping.
The Minister must not, therefore, try to claim that he is only in dispute with the Labour movement. He has been


criticised by one national organisation after another and with increasing stridency. The Royal Association, for example, has today issued a check list of no fewer than 17 Government attacks on the disabled. He has also been strongly criticised by individuals who have to live with the consequences of his policy. I ask him to listen, for example, to the view of the father of a spina bifida child. In the opinion column of the journal of the Association of Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus, the father said that the Minister
… ought to be fighting for a more humane and caring society, not encouraging a selfish one.
That is a very bitter comment. There is a similar comment from a hard-pressed woman who wrote recently to her Member of Parliament about the Minister's decision to cut the value of invalidity benefit. She wrote :
My husband is 44 and disabled by multiple sclerosis. He is a very sick man and yet his invalidity benefit is to be cut by at least 5 per cent. I wonder if Mrs. Thatcher knows, or understands, the burden of an incurable illness on a poor family. If she does, why add to our punishment?
That is not a letter in which the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister can take any pride. Nor can they take any pride or pleasure in the Disablement Income Group's description of what they have done as not just "appalling" but "cruelly unfair".
This is a Government who kick people if they are down. What makes it even harder for the victims to take that treatment is that the Government's spokesman in this debate is a man who, for more than a generation, argued the Socialist case that, especially in times of economic difficulty, the broadest backs must bear the biggest burdens. He is now an apologist for a Government who pile extra burdens even on people with broken backs. That is why the disabled and their organisations speak so bitterly.
Voluntary organisations, so blandly assumed by the Secretary of State to be able to step into the breach, cannot possibly make good the cuts inflicted by the Government. They are being starved of funds locally as local authorities cut their grants and as more and more people tighten their belts because of rampant inflation.
At the election, the Secretary of State said :

… charities would benefit as people found that they had more money to give to the charity of their choice after tax cuts.
That comment looks pretty sick today, yet the voluntary sector is exhorted to play an ever-greater role with ever-decreasing funds.
In their election manifesto the Conservative Party promised to concentrate help on the sick and disabled and others in greatest need. In office, the Government have gone out of their way to cut the living standards of hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who, as well as being poor, have little prospect of ever returning to work. They are mostly very worried people.
A further worry for many disabled people and their families is that the Government may be planning to abolish the 3 per cent. employment quota at a time when job prospects for the unemployed but employable disabled are becoming more and more daunting. May we have a plain assurance from the Minister that the quota will not be abolished?
One other very big worry is the statement made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science about his White Paper on the form that new legislation might take to deal with the recommendations of the Warnock committee. In his statement, the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave the impression that he thought that the majority of the Warnock proposals were addressed not to him but to local authorities.
I have been asked by many, including Professor Peter Mittler, to seek a clear assurance that the Government will not shuffle off their responsibilities. Effective implementation of the Warnock proposals will depend very heavily on Government encouragement. Unless the Government take a clear stand, matters will drift on and the level of provision will suffer drastically in many parts of the country. When he replies, I hope that the Minister will address himself to this deeply important matter for disabled children and their families.
Labour's manifesto commitments to the disabled were more than fully met by the previous Labour Government. Indeed, that Government went very much further than the terms of their commitments in improving both the well-being and the status of the disabled in contemporary society. As was made clear in a recent


parliamentary reply, the Labour Government increased their spending on cash help specifically for the chronically sick and disabled from £474 million when they came to office in 1974 to £1,574 million in 1979. That was an increase of £1,100 million.
Again, spending on centrally financed services for the disabled almost trebled. In real terms, they were very substantial improvements and they were achieved in economic conditions of great dfficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should read again some of his speeches as a Labour Minister in the previous Government.
It is because we did even more than we were pledged to do that we are now entitled to condemn the flat contradiction between the Government's manifesto commitments and the policy that they are now pursuing. We are also entitled to compare what they are doing with the continuing progress that there would have been if the previous Labour Govenment had stayed in office.
We were pledged in our manifesto last May to introduce a new and comprehensive benefit for the disabled that would vary according to the severity of their disabilities and that would specifically include the blind.

Mr. James Dempsey: Hear, hear.

Mr. Morris: A consultative document was being prepared on the new benefit even before the election. As Ministers have no access to the papers of their predecessors, I can assure Conservative Ministers and the House that a great deal of valuable work had been done on what would have been an important document for the disabled.
That work was immediately discontinued by the present Government, who claimed that no resources would be available in the foreseeable future for any new benefit for the disabled.
Since then the Government have cultivated two myths in their response to almost all the representations that they have received from or on behalf of the disabled. The first myth is that they inherited an economic mess from the Labour Government, whereas the fact is that the mess is very much of their own making. They know, as we do, that the Government inherited from Labour

an economy that, even by their own criteria, was in much better shape than any economy that a Labour Government have taken over from a Conservative Administration.
The Government inherited an economy in which industrial output was high. Inflation was only half what it is now. It was 3 per cent. lower than when the Tories left office and only 1 per cent. above the average for the major industrial countries. Borrowing as a percentage of output was well below the average for other European countries. Unemployment had been falling for 18 months. Living standards had risen by nearly 8 per cent. over the previous year.
So let the Government stop trying to pass the buck. The buck is theirs. They are faced with their own economic mess, and it is a mess that will worsen if they adhere to the disastrous policies that they are now pursuing.
The second Tory myth is that the Government's purpose in trying to tackle inflation, which gets worse every day, is to protect the old, the sick and the disabled. On 22 May, when speaking on the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, the Minister had the temerity to say in this House :
Therefore, when we put the fight against inflation as our top priority, we are doing it, above all, on behalf of the pensioners, the widows, the chronic sick and others in greatest need."—[Official Report, 22 May 1980 ; Vol. 985, c. 815.]
That argument, as the Personal Social Services Council has said in a report to be published next month, but from which happily I may quote this afternoon, is at best a half-truth. Indeed, it is barely a quarter-truth. No one denies that the disabled are especially vulnerable to rising costs. But the implication that the options can be reduced to a straight choice between cutting social benefits or economic disaster is essentially false.
The PSSC's report goes on to stress that the Government have made provision for growth in services such as defence and law and order and for more modest cuts in other services, and that it is thus :
… quite unreasonable that the personal social services should be given the lowest priority.
If the Government's main concern had been to protect the old, the sick and the disabled, they would not have smashed


the link forged by Labour's Social Security Act 1975 between social benefits and earnings. Nor would they be cutting invalidity benefit from November even for sick and disabled people who are well below the tax threshold. One does not prove one's concern for people by putting them at the top of one's hit list.
The truth is that, under this Government, the claims of the old, the sick and the disabled, come well below those of the top taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are facts galore to prove that proposition.
The Labour Party also pledged in its manifesto at the last election to work for the fuller implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is now 10 years since my Bill received the Royal Assent. The Bill became law entirely without party animus. Indeed, it won the active support of both sides of both Houses of Parliament. It was a Bill designed to improve not only the well-being but also the status of long-term sick and disabled people in contemporary society. Millions have been helped by its provisions, directly or indirectly, since it was enacted in 1970.
To give just two brief details about services provided under section 2 of the Act, more than 100,000 telephones have been installed in the homes of disabled people and well over 300,000 home adaptations have been made, ranging from a ramp or a stair lift to a complete extra room. I do not, however, want to catalogue the Act's achievements today. My concern is rather to ensure that the battle for full implementation of all the Act's provisions is won.
In this regard, it is disturbing to note the comments of Mr. Peter Westland, who is responsible for social services at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and who spoke immediately after the right hon. Gentleman at RADAR's meeting on 21 May. Mr. Westland said :
We have heard this afternoon the usual Ministerial plea ' Don't blame central Government for local aberrations ; we have told local authorities to protect the most vulnerable.' The most vulnerable, of course, alter to fit the Minister's audience. At the same time, Ministers cut the estimates for the personal social services by 7 per cent.
This is sheer double-talk. The facile advice to local government by Ministers, at a succession of meetings, is something which

local government really ought not to tolerate for very much longer…
To attribute to us the moral decisions which the government is backing out of is really not acceptable and ought to be rejected totally.
I am now often asked about the advice that I received on the legal effect of the Act when I was Minister for the Disabled. It was quite unequivocal. Once a local authority has accepted that the need exists in respect of one of the services listed in section 2, it is incumbent upon the authority to make arrangements to meet that need. Furthermore I was advised, as I said in a public speech at Ebbw Vale in 1977, that services provided under section 2 may not be withdrawn if there is no reduction of need. Again, as the Ombudsman made plain in 1976, successive Ministers have been advised legally that a local authority cannot plead lack of money as a reason for not meeting need under the Act.
Some local authorities, no doubt because of this Government's deplorable attitude to the personal social services, now appear to be flouting the law. The Director of Social Services for the borough of Trafford wrote to Mr. Paul Walker, the executive director of the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain, to say :
I am sorry to tell you that there is no money available for the provision of this lift during the current financial year…it became necessary to call a halt to all aids and adaptations to avoid overspending on the budget. Whilst I have every sympathy for this particular case, I very much regret that there is no further action that I can usefully take during this financial year".
The case was that of a boy with muscular dystrophy whose father had already had a heart attack from carrying him up and down stairs. The case was publicised in the Manchester Evening News and the following day, the Trafford lottery awarded the local branch of the Muscular Dystrophy Group £1,100 for the provision of the lift.
When the case was referred to him, the Minister replied that the need had been met and so the local authority was not breaking the law, although presumably the general policy still stood leaving many others with unmet needs.
This Government have given several well-informed people the impression that they have decided to apply a self-denying ordinance never to use their default


powers. If Ministers have so decided, I am advised that they themselves may be acting illegally.
What the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is all about is enabling disabled people to be a part of and not apart from society. It is about helping them to live in their own homes. To frustrate the Act's central purpose is to face many disabled people with the biggest cut of all, that of being cut off from the families they love. For them Tory freedom, as practised by some local authorities, can mean having to sacrifice their independence because of so-called economies on the aids necessary to keep them in the community.
Giving disabled people the right help in the right place at the right time is as much in the interests of taxpayers and ratepayers as it is of the beneficiaries themselves. What so often happens if disabled people lack adequate financial support and services is that they are forced into hospitals or other kinds of institutional care. And it costs a great deal more to look after them there than it does to help them to look after themselves at home.
That was one important justification for the Labour Government's rapid and substantial increase in spending on disabled people. It also explains why the present Government's policies are so widely feared and resented among disabled people.
Mr. Jack Hanson, the Director of Social Services for Dorset, said in a letter to The Times earlier this year that, as cuts in public expenditure on the personal social services began to bite, there would be many instances of home adaptations for disabled people being delayed or refused. He went on :
The risk of breakdown, leading to expensive health care not only for the disabled individual but also for other members of the family, is heightened. Is this what society wants? It seems far more constructive—and cost effective—for social policies to aim at strengthening families rather than tearing them apart.
"Tearing families apart" is perhaps the gravest charge to have been made against the Government. Yet Mr. Hanson was not writing from any political viewpoint. His pen is that of a socially concerned public servant of wide experience in the field of helping disabled and other disadvantaged people.
He knows, as I do, and as the House as a whole should know, that some of the Government's actions are shortening the horizons, humbling the ambitions and demeaning the dignity of disabled people. That is morally wrong ; and it cannot be politically right. It is also extremely sad and disturbing—and an issue that warrants support for our motion from all parts of the House.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weathe rill): Order. Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): I beg to move, to leave out from "so" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
recognises that, as two of the largest spending programmes, Social Security and Health and Personal Social Services must make some contribution to the inescapable reduction in public spending required by the economic situation inherited by the Government last year ; welcomes the valuable and increasing services for disabled people provided by the voluntary sector ; and looks forward to the Government giving a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people when additional resources become available.".
The problems of disabled people have been discussed in the House on many occasions in recent years. A general feature of them is that the debates have been bipartisan, with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House with concern and experience in these problems joining together in trying to find a joint answer to them. It is very sad that the Opposition have seen fit to put on the Order Paper a contentious motion, apparently leading to a Division, moved in the exaggerated language to which the House has just listened.
The bipartisan approach still prevails throughout the country. It prevails on dozens of social services committees of local authorities on which members of all parties work together without party division. It prevails—and I am glad that it does—on the all-party disablement group of this House, in which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House work together in co-operation and without partisanship.
I put it to the Opposition that, whatever pressure they are under from militant elements outside the House to step


up their attacks on the Government, if they make pawns of disabled people they are doing a disservice to them. It is a matter of very great regret that they have gone down this road.
Let us look at the two main points in the Opposition motion. The first is the reference to the 5 per cent. abatement in what otherwise would have been the uprating for invalidity benefit next November. I shall discuss it fairly briefly as hon. Members will not want to go over the debates that took place when the Social Security (No. 2) Bill was before the House recently.
I have described the proposal in language similar to that of my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members. My notes were prepared before I came into the Chamber, and they contain the word "unpalatable". It is a word that I have used many times. This proposal and others in that Bill were unpalatable to all of us but were a necessary part in reducing social security expenditure under the Government's economic strategy. As such they were accepted by the House by a large majority, and are now being debated in another place.
The specific proposals for a 5 per cent. abatement in the uprating of invalidity and other benefits were seen and described as temporary expedients until we can introduce a proper system of taxation for those benefits. My right hon. Friend has given assurances that we see the abatement as temporary, and it will be changed when circumstances alter.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, even in a time of economic stringency, some services should not be cut? How can he justify cutting these services while supporting increased defence expenditure?

Mr. Prentice: I could make a long speech about why I support increases in defence expenditure, particularly in view of what has happened in Afghanistan. However, I shall not do so now. The choice of cuts in the social security budget was difficult. They were made with great sensitivity, avoiding unnecessary hardship to the poorest in the community.
The Opposition motion refers to
the Government's decision to reduce the living standards of large numbers of the poorest disabled people".

That is not true. The poorest disabled people are eligible for supplementary benefits, which will be uprated in November, without the 5 per cent. abatement, in line with the expected rise in prices. That safety net remains immune. In addition, disabled people in receipt of supplementary benefit will now be able to move from the short-term to the long-term in one year instead of two. They will also get the benefit of the much higher levels of assistance with fuel costs, announced in recent weeks. Making calculations based on the merging of the middle and upper rate of benefit and on the very much higher upper rate of £3·40 a week, many disabled people will benefit to the extent of £78 a year. The poorest disabled people are better off as a result of the measures taken by this Government than they would have been under the arrangements that we inherited.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Local authorities such as Essex, by increasing charges, for instance, for those attending day care centres, and spending that money on telephone charges, are hitting the very poorest, and that is a result of this Government's policies. If the hon. Gentleman does not want the poorest to be treated in that way, will he say that he disagrees with the policy of the Essex county council and other local authorities?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman's intervention had nothing to do with what I was saying. I shall come to the role of local authorities and the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I was dealing with invalidity pensioners and state benefits.
The power to make charges has been part of the legal provision since 1948. Many local authorities have made charges. However, they also have the power to remit or reduce them for those with the lowest incomes. I hope that, if local authorities see fit to impose charges for, say, attendance at an occupational therapy centre, they will be sensitive to the position of those on the lowest incomes in order to make sure that people are not prevented from getting the services that they need. I believe that 99½ per cent. of councillors throughout the country would agree with that view.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I may have to re-write my speech in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's


answer. The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State states clearly in a letter that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will not meet the extra cost of home helps. That is a real cut. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that that decision no longer stands?

Mr. Prentice: There never can be a situation where automatically the Supplementary Benefits Commission is expected to pay for a service that local authorities do not pay for. There can never be total integration. We have made our view clear. Local authorities should not make charges for home helps for people on supplementary benefit. The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives me the chance to reiterate that.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) concentrated most of his speech on the other element of the motion. The key words are
the Government's planned reduction in personal social services".
There has been no overall planned reduction by local authorities so far. It is unfair for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, for party political reasons, to raise anxieties among vulnerable people. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said provided evidence that there was a planned reduction. I was waiting for evidence to support what he said in The Times yesterday, when he spoke of a 7 per cent. planned reduction in expenditure. He referred to that figure in his speech.
Let us put the matter in perspective. The Government have asked local authorities throughout Britain to rein back on their original spending plans and play their part in saving public expenditure. Within the social services budget there is often scope for savings that will not affect services to the vulnerable individual. For example, North-hamptonshire county council plans to make a reduction in its headquarters staff in order to administer services more economically. It plans a modest charge for attendance centres, similar to that suggested for Essex, but has decided to maintain in every particular the services available to the chronically sick and disabled.
It is typical of local authorities throughout Britain that the county council has reflected the repeated requests of my

right hon. Friend, my colleagues in the Department and myself to avoid cuts that would affect the most vulnerable—not that I think that they needed to be asked, because councillors are just as committed and concerned as is any hon. Member.

Mr. Alfred Morris: When I used the figure of 7 per cent., I was quoting Mr. Peter Westland, who is an expert on social services with the AMA. That was the figure that he gave at the RADAR conference at which the Minister spoke. In the London borough of Redbridge, part of which is represented by the Secretary of State, there is a charge for home helps for those on supplementary benefit. The Minister has said that he is in total disagreement with such action. Will he advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to go to Redbridge and repudiate that authority's action?

Mr. Prentice: If what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, I shall have a word with my right hon. Friend. If it is not correct, I shall have another word with the right hon. Gentleman. If we believe in local government, and I should have thought that every democrat does so, we must accept that there will be variations. It is easy, but unfair, to conduct such a debate by generalising from the worst examples.
I turn to the overall picture. The 7 per cent. figure was extracted from last year's public expenditure White Paper. Anyone who has studied the history of such White Papers will recognise the simple truth of what Treasury spokesmen have said under all Governments, namely, that figures written into such White Papers, particularly those relating to local government expenditure, do not reflect policy or even Estimates. They are working assumptions of what it is felt is likely to happen.
We can now look at what has happened. The real level of expenditure on personal social services in 1979–80 rose by about 3 per cent. compared with the previous year. If one wants to make a party point, that year was approximately the first 12 months during which the Government were in office.
The figures for local authority projects for 1980–81 show a further increase. I say that with caution, because we are still in the first quarter of that financial


year and in a demand-led service one cannot tell what has been spent until the year is over.
However, at present, I can say with some confidence that there will be some increase—I do not want to put a figure on it—in 1980–81. In other words, what has happened in the recent past is happening now and is likely to happen in the near future is a modest increase—not as much as most of us would want to see in an ideal world—in the provision made by local authorities for those with whom the debate is concerned.

Mr. David Ennals: Is the right hon. Gentleman rewriting the White Paper published in November, or is he saying that there are some new figures, different from those in the White Paper, which are being studied by the Select Committee?

Mr. Prentice: Anyone who has studied public expenditure White Papers over the years, irrespective of which party has been in office, will realise that many figures turn out to have been wrong. That is even more likely when the Treasury writes in figures related to policies implemented by local government rather than by central Government. Obviously the Cabinet has a more direct control over the central Government expenditure. I am stating the present picture as accurately as I can. The facts contradict the Opposition motion.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act has been a success story. I have often paid tribute to the part that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe played in the inception of the Act and I am glad to repeat the tribute, though he will agree that there were members of all political parties in the House on his original list of sponsors, that the proposal was accepted with universal support in both Houses and that the implementation of the Act over the past 10 years has been carried out under Governments and local authorities of both parties. It is a success story which reflects credit on, above all, local government.
If we have to play party games in these matters, and I wish that we did not, I can say that the fastest increase in the growth of provision under the Act took place during the period of office of the

Conservative Government of the early 1970s. The increases in the three years following 1971 were 11 per cent. 17 per cent. and 15 per cent. In the five years of the succeeding Labour Government, when the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe was the Minister responsible for the disabled, the increase was 10·7 per cent.—less in five years than in any one of three successive years of the Conservative Government. Therefore, the Opposition are not entitled to put on their usual act of pretending to have a monopoly of compassion in these matters.
Of course, much more is needed. The Act proclaimed standards that it would take many years to realise in practice. Indeed, they have not yet been realised. There is a long way to go. I repeat the Government's total commitment to continue to make a progressive success of the implementation of the Act. We are as committed to it as have been any Government of either party in the past 10 years.

Mr. Stanley Orme: If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why his party opposed the modest amendments to the Act that I proposed in a Private Member's Bill?

Mr. Prentice: I shall gladly do so if the right hon. Gentleman, who held office in the previous Government, will explain why that had to be done in a Private Member's Bill.

Amendments have been suggested from both sides of the argument. The Association of County Councils has suggested an amendment that would lessen the reserve powers of the central Government in relation to the activities of local government. The association has not pressed that suggestion in recent months and I assure the House that we have no proposal for an amendment along those lines in the forseeable future.

The intention of the right hon. Member for Salford. West (Mr. Orme) was to strengthen the power of the central Government over local government. I would vigorously resist such a move. The increase in the provision of services over the past 10 years—they have almost doubled in real terms—has been basically a triumph for local government. I do not believe that Ministers and civil servants in London are better able to deal


with the detailed problems of Brighton, Manchester, Liverpool or Salisbury.

There would have to be local administration and a director of social services in every locality in any case. I do not believe that the service would be better if those officials were simply district officers of the DHSS. It is much better that they should be responsible to locally elected councils. If we accept local government, we must accept that there will be variations and that there will be bad examples as well as good examples. Generally, I think that the better local authorities have acted as pacemakers for the others, and that is a healthy situation.

If it were a uniform, national service there might be less variation, but I believe that the average provision would be worse and such a system would be a blow to the democratic principles in which we all believe.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I share the view that, as far as possible, local authorities ought to be allowed to run their own affairs. The best is the enemy of the good in this area. However, would he not consider intervening when an abysmally bad local authority completely ignored the needs of the disabled?

Mr. Prentice: If, to quote the hon. Gentleman, a local authority is completely ignoring the needs of the disabled, it is in breach of a statutory duty and there are default powers that can be used. I have had no need in recent years to make increased use of default powers. On the other hand, if one is in a grey area where local authorities are not thought to be doing well enough but are not necessarily in breach of a statutory duty, this is surely what local democracy is all about. Local councillors are responsible to local communities. People within those communities can make their views clear and, if necessary, elect different councillors. This relates to the subject we are discussing or any other responsibility of local government.
We are discussing a period of time in which provision, in real terms, has approximately doubled. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe gave some examples. I should like to give more. In terms of personal aids for the disabled individual, at the beginning of the decade

about 118,000 had been issued. The latest figure available is 237,000, twice as many. In terms of homes to which structural alterations have been made, the figures have moved from 28,000 a decade ago to 68,000. The number of occupational therapists employed by local authorities was almost nil 10 years ago. Today there are over 500. Many authorities are trying to make new appointments but find that not enough trained people are available. This progress is continuing because of the overall figures that I quoted to the House.
A debate on disablement could cover a great many other topics. I want to refer to some. The Opposition speak as though the Government have been working against the interests of the disabled. I should like to list a few of the achievements that we have made in spite of overall economic restraints. I have already mentioned two achievements—the large improvement in help with paying fuel bills, and the fact that people were moved from the short-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term rate in one year instead of two.
A third achievement has been the raising of the mobility allowance by a total of 45 per cent. in the two upratings announced by this Government. Fourthly, there was the phasing in of the mobility allowance for people aged between 60 and 65 in one tranche instead of two as proposed by the outgoing Government and more rapidly than they had proposed. Fifthly, there was the removal of value added tax from cars leased by Motability, and, sixthly, the exemption of war widows' pension from income tax.
Seventhly, there has been an improvement in war pensions appeal tribunal procedures. Eighthly, there has been an extension of war pension entitlement to amputees who developed cardio vascular disease. Ninthly, there are proposals, still in a consultative form but published, to alter and improve the industrial injuries scheme so that a greater part of the benefit goes to the most severely disabled. It will be carried out on a nil cost basis and reallocated in a fairer way for the severely disabled. Tenthly, changes were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget to help charities, many of whom do invaluable work in helping disabled people.
Five further achievements include maintenance of the real value of grants made by the Department to the voluntary bodies and an increase in the real value of joint funding schemes between the Health Service and local authorities. I have recently initiated work in discussions with British Airways and aircraft manufacturers to improve facilities for disabled people travelling with airlines. There has been continued progress on access to buildings in close consultations between the Department, the Department of the Environment and the committee on restrictions against disabled people. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has accepted proposals of the Warnock committee for handicapped children.
The "Fit for Work" campaign launched by the Manpower Services Commission is supported actively and personally by Ministers in the Department of Employment, the Department of Industry and the Department I represent. Thousands of employers have been reached with the message that they could do more to offer employment to disabled people who have a contribution to make to production in this country.
Those are 15 examples—I could give more—but none was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The right hon. Gentleman is totally oblivious of the real world in which he lives : Alfred goes on burning the cakes.
To those who ask whether this is good enough, my reply is that of course it is not good enough. We never have done enough for disabled people. We can and must do a great deal more. That is why the Government amendment, in its closing words, speaks of
giving a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people when additional resources become available.
That is a pledge in the clearest terms. It is probably the best among many good reasons for making sure that this country earns more resources so that we can carry it out.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before calling the next speaker, I remind the House that the debate is due to end at about 7 pm. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I have no auth

ority to limit speeches, but speeches of not more than 10 minutes will enable most people to be called.

Mr. Jack Ashley: We have just heard a speech that will discourage, depress and dismay many disabled people all over Britain. It was one of the most remarkable speeches that I have ever heard. All those disabled people who see reports of the speech will find it incredible that the Minister contrived to make it appear as if the Government were acting like Santa Claus for the disabled—the man in the red cloak with the white beard handing out gifts to disabled people. It is remarkable how the Minister could distort the facts. Disabled people will be incredulous that he could make a case defending cuts in their living standards.
It does not matter what excuses are made. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman is an instrument of a Government making a complete and far-reaching change in policy towards the disabled. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of the all-party approach, I regret that such an approach cannot be maintained. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has done as much for disabled people as any hon. Member on the Conservative side of the House and, indeed, in the whole House of Commons. We have worked together in the all-party group. The Minister is the man responsible for breaking the bi-partisan approach. The change in policy is not the fault, as he states, of militants who are seeking to stoke up the fires. Those people who walked with me yesterday did not really walk. They were pushed, they were carried, They were wheeled. They were not Trots. They were not Reds under the bed. They were simply disabled people expressing their concern about Government policy. That is quite different from what the Minister stated, that they were militants. Perhaps I was duped. Perhaps they had come from Russia and wiped the snow off demonstration. Perhaps I am not deaf, but blind, and could not see the snow on their boots. Possibly they were KGB agents—but I do not think so. The demonstrators spoke to me during and after the march.
The Minister said that the demonstration was phoney. I arrived at the


demonstration at 10.45 am, before most people. At that time a man in a wheelchair had arrived from Wales. He had left home at 6.30 am and was driven to London with his young son. He had taken all that trouble to be present at the demonstration against the Government's policy towards the disabled. He planned to return home to Wales that night, and he would have arrived home exhausted after a day in London. There was nothing phoney about that.
I met a group of young spastics. Their bodies were shaking uncontrollably. Most of them could not speak. There was nothing phoney about them.
I told a group of blind men what the Minister had said in Westminster Hall. Most of the blind people were indignant, but one was not. He smiled rather sadly, handed me his white stick and said "Tell Reg Prentice that there is nothing phoney about that".
The charge that militants are stirring up trouble about the Government's policy on the disabled is totally unjustified. I repudiate the Minister's assertion that the demonstration was phoney. It was not a large demonstration, and I should have liked to see more there, but it was genuine and sincere. The Minister should be more careful before making wild allegations.
The Minister's speech revealed a striking failure to appreciate the appalling problems of severely disabled people. If he wants to argue about what disablement really means I am prepared to argue with him. However, I wonder whether he really understands the burden, the difficulties, the heartbreak, the humiliation, the frustration and, above all, the costs of disablement. Cuts in any service for disabled people are doubly damaging. They are far more damaging than similar cuts in services to able-bodied people. That is why disabled people are speaking out clearly and strongly.
How can one tell a paralysed man who is imprisoned in a wheelchair that he must accept his share of the nation's economic burden? How can one tell a badly crippled housewife that she must accept the philosophy of everybody standing on his own two feet? How can one indicate to a mentally handicapped child that if he is patient social services

will be improved as the balance of payments improve?
Disabled people have been buffeted throughout the ages. They have been the victims of public neglect, indifference, disdain, scorn and even contempt. From time immemorial they have heard excuses about the inability to act now. There is always a reason why they cannot be helped now. Sometimes the excuse is that more research is necessary, or that more anomalies will be created. Sometimes it is that improvements to their lot will deprive other deserving cases. Sometimes the excuse is the state of the economy. Clichés roll of the tongues of Government spokesmen.
Under the Labour Government massive increases in benefits were given to the disabled. I do not want to bore the House with figures. Four major benefits were given and over £1,000 million was paid out in cash benefits. I am prepared to use the statistical argument, but I do not want to. The Minister went through a list of 15 benefits for the disabled which his Government had granted. I can beat that with 16 damaging actions by his Government. I did not intend to read the list because I wanted to make a short speech, but I must give tit for tat. One of the many failings in my character is that I cannot turn the other cheek when attacked. In exchange for the 15 examples of the beneficial effects of the Government's policies, I shall provide 16 aspects of policy which damage disabled people. I could give more.
The first damaging action is the breaking of the link between benefits and the rise in earnings. The second is the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity benefit. The third is the change in the linking period to make it more difficult to qualify for invalidity benefit. The fourth is the increase in VAT from 8 to 15 per cent., which hits disabled people with small incomes, in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
The fifth damaging action is the increase in prescription charges from 20p to £1. The sixth is the abolition of exceptional needs payment for disabled people who are not drawing supplementary benefit. The seventh is the failure to make good the shortfall in benefits arising from the miscalculation of the rise in earnings and prices. The eighth is the reduction


in the long-term rates of supplementary benefit.
The ninth damaging action is the abolition of the additional supplementary benefit to pay for a local authority home help. The tenth is the abolition of earnings-related supplements to sickness benefit. The eleventh is the abolition of space standards for council housing—the Parker Morris standards—which will make houses even less accessible for wheelchairs. The twelfth is the removal of the duty on local authorities to report proposals for wheelchair and mobility housing.
The thirteenth damaging action is the reduction in the number of skillcentre places. The fourteenth is the abolition of occupational guidance units. The fifteenth is the failure to provide money for integrated education. The sixteenth is the reduction by 7 per cent. in planned expenditure on personal social services.
I am sorry to have rushed through that list, but we were challenged by the Minister. I am indebted to Mr. Peter Mitchell the splendid research officer of RADAR, for help with that list.
I do not like this tit-for-tat argument. We must try to get down to the nub of the problem, which is how we can best help disabled people. How can we, between us, somehow further the solution of their problem? It is a question of the attitude of the Government. I am fed up with the repetition of the phrase—the right hon. Gentleman repeated it today—that members of the Opposition do not have a monopoly of compassion. The House will know that I have a special interest in the safety of drugs. I have been pursuing that question for almost five years on the issue of reporting adverse reactions and on the work of the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
We had a debate on that subject a few weeks ago, and the Under-Secretary, who I hope will answer this debate, managed to drag in the same irrelevant phrase. He said that I must not believe that I had a monopoly of compassion. I have never claimed that. I raised the question with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about six months ago, and he said that I must not pretend that I had a monopoly of compassion. Lo and behold, I had not even spoken this after

noon when the Minister said that I must not assume that I had a monopoly of compassion.
I do not claim that. I am just trying to help disabled people. If we are to assess the basic philosophy of the Government, let us take—I hope that I shall be challenged if I misquote or take remarks out of context—the words of the present Minister with responsibility for the disabled, who said on 26 July 1979 to the Royal National Institute for the Blind :
I would not insult disabled people by suggesting that they can contract out of Government problems.
To judge from the right hon. Gentleman's performance so far, there is no danger of his insulting disabled people in that way. I believe, however, that he has insulted them by his failure to advance the provisions for the severely disabled.
The major problem is the shortfall in invalidity benefit. That is only in the short term. The more serious long-term problem is the severance of the link between retirement pensions and prices and earnings, whichever is the higher.
I believe that the harsh climate that has been engendered by the Government is damaging. The Association of Directors of Social Services has given evidence that directly contradicts what the right hon. Gentleman said today. They are the men who are working at the grass roots with the disabled and with local councils. I appreciate the Minister's argument about no long waiting lists, but those directors of social services have given voluminous and overwhelming evidence of the failure to provide adequate services for the disabled.
The greatest danger is that the harsh climate engendered by the Government means that we may emasculate the strength of and the help, little as it is, given to the severely disabled. There is a possibility that all disabled people, but especially the severely disabled, will succumb to pressures. They may become demoralised and give up.
I hope that they will not do that. I hope too, that they will not be deterred by Ministers calling them phoneys. I trust that they will make their voices heard and that they will express their anger and their indignation. I hope that they will demonstrate with


the spirit with which they demonstrated yesterday, and I hope that they will not be satisfied until they have secured justice and independence.

Mr. David Price: As I think the whole House knows, I am a member of a disabled family. We do not have many debates on disability and it is tempting, therefore, to try to make a major contribution in a discussion of the way we try to help our disabled fellow citizens.
As the House knows, disability comes in many shapes and sizes. However, I shall respond to your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief. I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that we should attempt to find points upon which most of us can agree.
One of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there is a great deal of unfulfilled need among the disabled. We cannot argue about that. I believe that it is also correct to put that fact into juxtaposition with points made by my right hon. Friend the Minister and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) which highlighted the progress that has been made. It is a curious thing that as we make progress we identify more and more need among the disabled. I believe that those needs are virtually unlimited.
That leads me to the substantial point on which I hope I can carry the House. Our object must be so to arrange matters in our society that more and more of our severely disabled fellow citizens can be accommodated as full and equal members of society. That would mean going a great deal further than the mere provision of physical facilities.
The shorthand for achieving that honourable objective is integration. It is reasonable to ask what we mean by integration in this context. The briefest and most succinct way of describing to the House what I mean by integration is to quote from the report of Lord Snowdon's working party. Lord Snowdon and his colleagues said that
Integration for the disabled means a thousand things. It means the absence of segregation. It means social acceptance. It means being able to be treated like everybody else. It means the right to work, to go to cinemas, to enjoy outdoor sport, to have a

family life and a social life and a love life, to contribute materially to the community, to have the usual choices of association, movement and activity, to go on holiday to the usual places, to be educated up to university level with one's unhandicapped peers, to travel without fuss on public transport. Whatever their different circumstances, all disabled people yearn for a society which palpably recognises their common humanity with the handicapped.
It is my view that the key to all this lies in the words "common humanity."
To me this means that disabled people must be able to retain their integrity however restricted their physical or mental capabilities may be. They must be helped by society, but they must not be patronised by society. That is a subtle but important difference in our approach to these matters. I put it to my right hon. Friends that the ideal is contained in Disraeli's great vision of one, rather than two, nations.
The numbers we are speaking of are massive. Right and hon. Members will know that Amelia Harris in her report produced a figure of over I million disabled people. She was not, of course, including children. I think, therefore, that a fair figure is of the order of 1,250,000 disabled people. That is a massive proportion of a population of 58 million people.
It is also clear that, although the numbers are massive, the needs vary equally massively. The difference between the requirements of the blind, the requirements of the spinal paraplegic and the requirements of the serious schizophrenic are all different. I, therefore, suggest that what we require is not a single, but a comprehensive approach to disability. I do not make a party point when I say that if ever the word comprehensive was capable of being used as a description of public policy, it is in relation to the disabled.
I suggest therefore that this demands a continuing partnership between central Government, local Government, the voluntary societies, the families concerned and, above all, the individual disabled person. Therefore, by definition, there is no simple textbook answer to how we as a society should look after our disabled fellow citizens, especially at the level of central Government.
I agree very much with my right hon. Friend the Minister about the role of local authorities in this matter and about the


many ways in which they could be more sensitive to immediate needs. However, there is one message that comes through loud and clear from every national report, from every personal study of disability and from all our personal cumulative experience. It concerns the financial needs of severely disabled people. It is to the central Government that they turn.
Put simply, disability means loss of earnings, extra cost and severe restrictions on the quality of life. The first two aspects of that statement are obvious. The third may need more explanation, however. There is much evidence to show that money widens the range of choice for the disabled person, because that person is then equipped to buy the services that may be needed to make life more tolerable and even enjoyable. The present arrangements for providing financial help for disabled people have no logical foundation. Two people with equal handicaps and equal needs can receive widely differing financial help to meet those needs. Thus, although some disabled people obtain reasonable financial help for their disabilities through, for instance, the war pension scheme, the industrial injuries scheme, or, if they are fortunate, through compensation through the courts, many do not.
I am sure that many hon. Members have read the comprehensive study of The Economist Intelligence Unit entitled "Whose Benefit?". It is an essential work for anyone who wishes to express views on how to improve public policy towards the disabled. Nobody who reads it can disagree with the conclusion reached in it that the present system is
a rag-bag of provisions based on a variety of principles, some of them relating to a bygone social order.
All of us who have studied these matters for any length of time and in any depth know that The Economist is profoundly right in that definition. I therefore invite the Government to implement one of the main proposals of the report of The Economist that
a new Beveridge is needed.
In short, we need a wide-ranging independent report upon how the whole system of financial help to the disabled, or the lack of it, should be restructured, and we need an understanding from the

Government that the findings of such a report will be implemented.
I realise that this is not a particularly favourable moment at which to invite my right hon. Friends to consider spending more public money upon the disabled. Eventually, however, more money will have to be spent, both proportionately and absolutely. Anyone who studies this area of public policy is driven indisputably to that conclusion. I therefore invite my right hon. Friends to acknowledge this fact, however unpalatable it may be.
This is, however, a favourable moment at which to conduct a new Beveridge inquiry along the lines that I and The Economist would like. Inquiries take a bit of time to carry out ; and I would hope that by the time the report with its conclusions was in the hands of my right hon. Friends the economy would be in such a flourishing condition that they would have not the slightest difficulty in implementing it immediately.
Although on this occasion the Government have erred in the treatment of invalidity pensions, I reject the Opposition's charge that they have irretrievably put fiscal rectitude ahead of human compassion. There is nothing immoral in treating invalidity benefit the same as the old-age pension for tax purposes. It was an error, however, to jump the gun on the uprating figures for this autumn. That I regret.
Certainly we on the Conservative Benches will expect my right hon. Friends to rectify this error in the years to come, especially if that can be done in the context of a gradual move towards a new and properly structured disablement benefit scheme. We will naturally expect my right hon. Friends to honour their amendment on the Order Paper and to ensure that they give
a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people.
I invite the Government to be good Samaritans. The good Samaritan was a good neighbour, but I have no evidence that he was also an improvident spender. After all, he spent his own money. I can therefore accept the Government's qualification
when additional resources become available.
I invite the House to do the same.

Dr. M. S. Miller: In a thoughtful and obviously well-studied speech, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) raised a number of questions, which I am sure will occupy the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and made a number of proposals, which both sides of the House would do well to consider. Of course, a Conservative Government are in office, and his views and recommendations should therefore be directed to that quarter.
In a time of difficulty it is all the more important that we should look after those in our society who are least able to cope with the problems of that society. We should support them even more than we would in normal circumstances. The hon. Member had a very caring attitude towards the disabled.
We all have constituents who are disabled. We have accepted, as we are entitled to accept, the responsibility to help them to lead lives as nearly normal as their circumstances permit. If I judge him correctly, the hon. Member for Eastleigh was moving towards a disablement income of some kind.
The Minister read a list of 15 ways in which assistance had been given in recent years. That list was topped by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). However, the assistance given to disabled people, welcome as it is, is merely the beginning of the process. Even if it is handled perfectly it is only the start, and a start that we ought to be expanding, not contracting.
With the difficulties that the country is facing, we should establish priorities of some kind. The disabled, however they are disabled, should be given a high priority. Our constituencies contain disabled of all kinds—the blind, the deaf, the physically and mentally handicapped and the chronically ill. They all need more than our sympathetic consideration—they need all the help that they can get.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh was right in saying that they should not all be lumped together as one homogeneous group. They are not a homogeneous group. It is likely that they have only one common factor, namely, that they are disabled, but they are different in

their physical and mental handicaps and in their psychological outlook. They therefore need assistance which is not put in a rag bag but which is to a great extent shaped to the individuality of those receiving it in terms of their physical, mental and psychological out look.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred to attitude. I am not claiming that the Labour Party has a monopoly of caring, but I wish to cite an example of attitude. Some years ago a constituent phoned me in a state of panic. She had been badly disabled as a result of polio in her youth, and wore two callipers. She was small in stature. She had retired from an arduous bookkeeping job which involved travelling from her home to Glasgow every day, despite her tremendous disability. She lived in a municipal house, and she asked me to look at the house because she had a problem. She had adapted the house at her own expense to meet the needs of her disability. All the facilities, such as the kitchen and the bathroom, were adapted to a level such that she could operate. It was a lovely house which had cost her a good deal of money to adapt.
The house was being renovated by the then local authority. It sent some mindless minor minion to see her, and she said "I hope that the house will be renovated to the specifications that I need ". He said "You know Mrs., we cannot do that because it is possible that, when you have gone, the house will be allocated to a normal person ". That is the sort of attitude to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred. Fortunately, a phone call to the chief executive of the council put the matter right. When I returned to see the lady some time after the work had been completed, the renovations had been carried out to her specifications.
I know of another case that illustrates quite clearly that assistance should be geared to specific needs. A constituent of mine suffers from a severe spastic disability, with cerebral palsy. He was a guinea pig for a new vehicle called a maximum contact chair, a number of which are being developed. In spite of the fact that he was responsible, to some extent, for the development of the chair, he has found it impossible to obtain one I hesitate to lay the blame firmly at the


door of the Government, but I think that it is because of cuts in spending—which are essential in the Government's mind—that the development of the chair is not taking place as fast as it should. We need assistance tailored to the requirements of the individual. Sometimes we even need personal assistance on an individual basis. We should not regard the disabled as one group.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I shall conclude with a philosophical, albeit a platitudinous, remark, which should be uttered. The hallmark of a caring society lies in the provision that it makes for those who are most in need. There is no doubt in the minds of those who are concerned that high among that category are the disabled. Regardless of what the Minister says, I consider it an act of callous neglect that the disabled should be included among the victims of the Government's axe.

Mr. John Hannam: It is a short debate, and I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to take part. While I share the deep concern that has been expressed by other hon. Members about the effect of present economic conditions on the disabled and handicapped, I do not feel inclined to support the Opposition motion in the Lobby tonight. The disabled, like everyone else in our community, are prepared to make some sacrifices in the interests of achieving overall national stability in the economy. They know, as well as anyone, that, given the available resources, Conservative Governments have done more in the area of personal social services than the low-growth Labour Administrations. Our expenditure on personal social services rose more in the early part of the 1970s—when I first entered Parliament—than it did during the whole period of the previous Labour Government, because the Conservative Government achieved more growth in the economy than did the Labour Administration. That is why I cannot support the Opposition motion.
As usual, we are having a thoughtful and constructive debate on disablement. I should like to continue in that vein. However, I wish to apply some strictures and reservations on the method of achieving savings in public expenditure on

which we have embarked. The Government amendment is right to refer to the need for some cuts. It is also right to refer to the need to allow the disabled to live independent lives.
In my short speech I wish to point out one or two areas where I believe the Government need to lay down some basic minimum standards for the protection of the disabled. I know that I shall diverge from the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister when I make my comments.
First, my right hon. Friend has repeatedly asked local authorities to protect personal social services under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 when making expenditure cuts. However, all the evidence from the various monitoring surveys shows that his words have not been heeded by a large number of local authorities. Services to the disabled are being seriously and disproportionately affected. If we were living in an ideal world where, for several decades, the provision of equipment, adaptations and alterations had been made in profusion, some temporary cutbacks could be borne by the disabled. But that is not the case. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 has not been properly implemented since its inception. The problems of under-provision of services and of the wide discrepancies between different authorities in different areas were there from the start. They increased with the cuts in social service spending in 1976, and are now becoming worse.
That is not only a problem under this Government. For all his indignation in his opening speech, it happened just as badly under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). Then, as now, the all-party disablement group argued for greater protection of services to the disabled—first, by the Government setting basic minimum standards of provision, and secondly, by the allocation of specific amounts within the rate support grant for spending on those services.
All too many local authorities are using the cuts as an excuse, not to reduce their bureaucracy and manning levels but to hit at those on the receiving end by sharply increased charges or by withdrawal of services, accommodation and equipment. Many individual Members of


Parliament have called attention to the ill-treatment of services in their areas. I implore the Government to accept a greater degree of responsibility for more direct control over those priority services. They are services that the disabled cannot do without if we intend them to maintain a degree of normal life.
I recall that during the early 1970s the then Secretary of State for Social Services issued circulars about care for the mentally handicapped. They were designed specifically to establish minimum levels of services. I see no reason why, during a period of crisis in Britain, the same degree of influence should not be exerted by the present Minister.
I turn to housing. After many years of appalling neglect, the housing authorities and associations have at last begun to make some progress with the inclusion of mobility housing standards in ordinary housing, and in the construction of mobility and wheelchair units. But there is now a 50 per cent. reduction in public spending on housing, and the 33·4 per cent. reduction in the HIP could mean that the only housing which is provided for disabled people will be in the form of segregated welfare housing which is separated from the rest of the community.
In this period of economic stringency, what is needed is a specific allocation within the HIP for housing for special needs. The poor record of many councils was highlighted in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) on 12 May. It showed that 20 local authorities have not completed any mobility or wheelchair housing in the last three years and have none under construction. As Members of Parliament, we should urge our own housing authorities to give priority to disabled people. For their part, the Government should encourage local authorities to include mobility housing in their house improvement and new homes for purchase schemes. The alternative is to push the handicapped back into institutions and hospitals, and we know the cost of that in social and financial terms.
I turn briefly to the 5 per cent. abatement in invalidity benefit, which forms a crucial part of the Opposition's motion. I made my views on this matter very clear in the debate on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State admitted that this

was a tough measure. I reiterate what I and my hon. Friends on the all-party group feel—that it is too tough, too arbitrary and cannot be accepted in the years to come. We welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to restore the loss of the uprating and the link with the retirement pension. All that we ask today is that that should take place as soon as possible.
I should like to make one point concerning the role of our Select Committees. I have always supported the concept of those Select Committees as pre-legislative examining bodies which, together with Ministers and civil servants, look at proposed legislation before final drafting. That system, which I have seen operating in Sweden and elsewhere, allows for better scrutiny of legislation. Had the proposals on the abatement of invalidity benefit, and the reduction in the linkage period from 13 weeks to six weeks, been discussed in such a forum, with Ministers, civil servants and disabled organisations, I am sure that they would not have been pursued because of their counter-productive nature and the damage which they can cause.
I am grateful to the Government for accepting my amendment to raise the linkage period to eight weeks. I sensed an acceptance of the case for no further years of the 5 per cent. abatement. I hope that my instinctive feeling will subsequently be borne out.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), I should like to touch on the whole question of the future for the disabled. Until recently, we have all—Governments, Members of Parliament and disablement organisations—been gradually moving towards a more rational system of disablement benefits and away from the anomalous "rag bag", as the economic unit described it, of benefits which now exist.
The fact is that most disabled people have low incomes, if any at all, yet they face larger out of pocket expenses than the non-disabled—special clothing, foodstuffs, medicines, heating, transportation and so on. If they work, albeit earning very little, they lose all their benefits and can be financially worse off than if they stayed at home. If they get a mobility allowance, and try to use it to get a job, they are taxed. If they try to lease a car


through Motability, they pay VAT on the adaptations. The list of the anomalies which exists is long, and I could weary the House with a description of them.
Mary Greaves, whom we all know through her work with the Disablement Income Group, reminded us most aptly about the problems in her recent article in the DIG magazine. She, a severely disabled person living alone, listed some of the extra costs which she faces, and about which we probably never even think. For example, she cannot go to the bank to get cash and must send a registered letter, at a cost of more than £12 a year. That is her £10 Christmas bonus gone. She has to send everything to the laundry, and each sheet costs in excess of 74p a time. She must shop from catalogues. She cannot go out and shop around or get any of the sales bargains. As she cannot go out, her heating must be on all the time. If she has callers—and she likes friends to come and visit her—she must provide tea or coffee or light refreshments. The bills and the costs mount. Special clothing and special foodstuffs for her diet also eat into her already very low income.
I shall not feel satisfied with provision for the disabled until we are back on course for the general disablement cost allowance. It must be free of tax and must cover the basic expenses which the handicapped face. My right hon. Friend the Minister has at this stage ruled out even a Green Paper, on the grounds that he does not want to raise the expectations of disabled people. The disabled have remained cheerful and uncomplaining through many years of neglect. They do not expect the earth, but at least let us, as soon as possible, give them something to look forward to, even if it takes years to achieve.

Mr. David Ennals: I pay a tribute to the hon. Members for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and for Manchester, Wy-thenshawe (Mr. Morris), because they have been the nucleus of what has been an all-party movement in this House. It spread over the years when Labour was in power and we were steadily moving

forward. I appreciate the help given by the all-party group, because we often asked it how we should go forward.
The Minister said that he was sorry that there now seems to be no all-party support, but he has heard all-party support in the comments of his hon. Friends as well as those of my colleagues.
Yesterday many of us met the lobby of disabled people. I saw some of them in Westminster Hall. The first complaint made by my constituents, who had travelled from Norwich, was that the Minister for Social Security had refused to see them. They said that that added insult to injury. By "injury" they meant the various actions that have been taken by the Government, and by "insult" they meant the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had dismissed people who wished to demonstrate and plead with the Government to show a greater concern for the disabled.
During yesterday's lobby, which I agree could have been better organised, my mind went back to the first lobby of the House of Commons, led by the distinguished and lamented Megan du Boisson, of the disablement income group in 1968, at a time when there were no special benefits for the disabled, except for war pensions and industrial injuries. Their voice was a compelling one. Along with my late colleague, Dick Crossman, who was then Secretary of State for Social Services, we introduced the new attendance allowance and the invalidity benefit, which, to give them credit, the Conservative Government included in their legislation in 1971.
There is also the Act that was put on the statute book on an all-party basis, referred to as the "Alf Morris" Act. I honestly believe that no man in the country has done more to fight for the needs of the disabled than has my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who, with his own disability, has displayed such courage and has shown how disabled people can be integrated. He has become almost a standard bearer for disabled people. The Minister's speech makes me sad, because the comparison is so very different.
I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that we developed our services in a


rag-bag way. When we came back into power we introduced the mobility allowance, the non-contributory invalidity pension, the special benefit for disabled housewives and the invalidity care allowance, as well as the organisation Mutability. In a sense, all tried to fulfil different needs. As the House knows, we committed ourselves at the next stage—we did not know when it could be done, because we were faced with financial problems, just like the present Government—to the need for a disability income. That is what we should be working towards.
I believe that the Government should now introduce a Green Paper. I do not think that it will arouse the hopes of people that they will get bread tomorrow or jam next year, but we must discuss the matter with the people.
We were moving forward, but I fear that we are now moving backwards. Organisations representing the disabled take that view even more strongly. According to the Minister for Social Security, RADAR gave him a good reception when he addressed its annual meeting. The members of that organisation are very polite people, whom I have known over the years. The current edition of its bulletin, "Contact", says :
It is indisputable that the achievements of the past ten years are under serious attack.
RADAR is under serious attack from the policies of the present Government.
The disability alliance, which brings together many organisations dealing with disability, commented sharply :
The Government's first year in office has seen a reduction in the real value of social security benefits, and a decline in the standard of social service provisions for people with disabilities.
Disability alliance rejects the view that such sacrifices are necessary to economic survival. I agree entirely with those words. The alliance calculated that the £1,400 million that was given in tax cuts to the 5·5 per cent. of the better-off in this country was almost the same as the total sum that we pay to disabled people in invalidity benefits, invalidity pensions, industrial benefits and other allowances.
It now looks as if we are to go a stage further. The sick, disabled, elderly and unemployed are now being forced to pay for the Chancellor's dispensation of largesse in his 1979 budget. Those

are despicable priorities. It is despicable that the sick and disabled must bear the burden. That is a mean, penny-pinching attitude, quite contrary to the position that the present Secretary of State adopted when he was in opposition. The White Paper that was published in November—I do not know whether the Prime Minister knows what the Secretary of State is now saying—indicated that personal social services would be 9 per cent. lower than had been planned by the Government of which I was Secretary of State. No wonder the Minister for Health, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, referred to this as a fundamental change in policy. The evidence from the directors of social services in local authorities——

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): That is not what my right hon. Friend said. The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) put those words to me when I appeared before the Select Committee, and I have the quotation here. It was not a "fundamental change in policy ". If the right hon. Gentleman has with him the words used by my hon. Friend, perhaps he would be good enough to read them.

Mr. Ennals: I shall send that quotation to the Secretary of State tomorrow. I have checked the words of the Minister for Health and they are absolutely clear. He said that this was the one "fundamental change". There were no changes in other aspects of health provision. We have heard from directors of social services that there have been cuts in home helps, meals on wheels and day centres, and that those cuts are affecting disabled people.
It is difficult to criticise the Government. The Personal Social Services Council criticised the Government and, as a result, it got the boot—curtains for the Personal Social Services Council. It was curtains also for the national development group for the mentally handicapped, which has done magnificent work on behalf of mentally handicapped people over the past four years. But the Government will not be able to silence the criticisms of those people who speak for the weakest pressure groups in the country—the disabled. They will not be able to refuse to hear their claims.
No one can close his eyes to present economic difficulties, but if a price must be paid for solving them it should be asked of those with the means to pay. The needs of countless sick and disabled people will not wait upon the return to prosperity.
I conclude with the words of the directors of social services, who know best about the provisions that are made at a local level. They say :
To suggest to those in need of help that they must wait until the rest of society is rich enough not to notice the sacrifice needed to provide aid is insulting. Anyone can afford to be generous when they are wealthy. Surely the mark of a truly caring society is the willingness to give higher priority to the needs of the disadvantaged than to our own personal comfort and security.
I echo those words from the bottom of my heart.
Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There may be two Front Bench speakers again in this short debate, and unless speeches are limited to five minutes I shall be able to call only three more Back-Bench Members. I appeal to hon. Members to bear that in mind.

Mr. Tom Benyon: This is an important debate. Speeches have been both thoughtful and constructive. The debate is also important to 1½ million disabled people below retirement age. I realise the difficulty of the Government in trying to improve standards for disabled people at this time, and I do not wish to take the House on a guided tour around the economic problems that face us. They have been well rehearsed. It ill lies in my mouth to try to persuade my party to increase expenditure, and thus to improve standards anywhere in our society at present.
I know that there are siren and beguiling voices who tempt Back-Bench Members such as myself to vote for motions that would try to persuade the Government to do that. I am reminded of the boy with his finger in the dyke who held back some water—it could be the water of inflation—and behind, the siren voice saying "Please come and help the disabled person."
The history of the Conservative Party in social services matters has been excel

lent for many years. The current Secretary of State for Industry—the previous Secretary of State for Social Services—was the most reforming Minister since the war in this area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to move along the road of creative reform at some stage. I am sure that he is as worried and depressed at the deterioration of standards of the disabled as is any hon. Member. Let us hope that he will be able to take the first steps along this road quite shortly.
As has been rehearsed already, the position is not all bleak. Indeed, there have been improvements in mobility allowance, a considerable uprating in joint funding, and an increase in help for voluntary organisations, which must come as a tremendous boost to many of them. Let us give credit to those voluntary organisations that we need now, when the State-provided services are creaking. However, I find considerable difficulty in squaring our commitments, as outlined in our manifesto and "The Right Approach", with the current situation. I quote from "The Right Approach" :
Priority should continue to be given, where resources permit, to improving services to the disabled and the chronically sick.
During the election campaign we made two commitments in this respect. One was implied and the other was stated. The first was that the disabled would not become worse off. I believe that the disabled in our society should be regarded—to use a cliché from another time—as a special case. I do not believe that they should have to carry a burden of economies. Also, it was promised that in time, when the nation could afford it, we would spend more money on the disabled.
Many speakers in the debate have said that we should introduce a disablement allowance, which would allow disabled people to draw, as a right, a pension for their disability. The current complicated, untidy tapestry of benefits, which is regarded as highly unsatisfactory on both sides of the House, casts recipients in the role of supplicants. I should like these benefits, in time, to be rolled together into a form of disablement pension. Further, they are patronising.
It is indisputable that at present the disabled are worse off. I am sure that the Conservative Party cannot be saying that the position can be rectified only


when the nation is rich enough not to notice the sacrifice. Because of the lack of a complete uprating of the invalidity benefit a quarter of a million people will be worse off and are worse off now, and the only commitment that they have is that their position may be restored if the resources are available. Quite what value judgment will be applied to that statement I am not entirely sure. This must be clarified.
I have calculated that a married couple, albeit on the highest rates of invalidity pension, would be £2·10 a week worse off now. That is a lot of money when the total income is only £37 a week.
Secondly, such people have been hit badly by the rise in value added tax, including the five months of increased VAT before the uprating of invalidity benefit. VAT rose on 18 June. Invalidity benefit rose on 12 November.
Thirdly and most importantly, whether or not we like it, and whether we blame local authorities or take some responsibility ourselves, cuts are now falling on the shoulders of the disabled. Out of a great many authorities included in a recent piece of research, 32 have already cut benefits for the disabled and 27 are making cuts in facilities for the mentally handicapped, home helps, residential services and telephones—and special home buildings for disabled people are not progressing now. The cuts are falling on the services, not on waste.
The result—I think that there is consensus about this on both sides of the House—is great hardship. I am quite sure that that hardship is not intended by our Government.
The future looks as bleak, if not bleaker. In 1980–81 further cuts are being requested—cuts of 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. Therefore, whatever one might say about the current position the way forward looks very bleak for the disabled. I am sure that the motives for the cuts and economies that we are making are very good—nay, they are impeccable. However, I believe that in terms of the disabled they represent a false economy. I am convinced that many disabled people will find—as they are finding—not only that their cash is becoming shorter in their pockets but that the services on which they have come to rely are being cut back, and that they will be forced into institutional care.

Therefore, not only will there be a great deal of hardship and suffering ; our community may be suffering extra costs.
I was asked by one of my colleagues whether I had had a lot of protesters complaining bitterly about their position. I do not have a big mailbag from protesters about this matter, but I do not believe that, traditionally the disabled form such vocal protesting lobbies as we have in many other areas of social concern. That is all the more reason for us to regard them as a special case and with great care. Many of them are unemployed, with little prospects of getting jobs. Many are despairing, crippled and poor, and they will get poorer.
I should like to make some suggestions. First, one of the ways of resolving the problems of local authorities which are cutting not the administration and staffing levels but services, is to develop the policy of joint funding, which is of great use in my area. In my area of Oxford, about £600,000 has been made available. There has been an increase of over 18 per cent. on last year's figure. The Government should be congratulated. That money is being spent most imaginatively, in my area on crossroads and other schemes of that sort.
Secondly, I should like to see the implementation, as soon as possible, of the manifesto commitment to institute a committee to look into the question of the rationalisation of benefits. I do not believe that this will merely raise the hopes of the disabled. They are intelligent enough to realise that we shall not be able to do this until we are rather better off. This must be done. Lastly, the uprating of invalidity benefits must take place without delay.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I make one last appeal for five-minute speeches. I am now told that the winding-up speeches are not likely to take place until 6.40 pm, which will enable me to call three or four hon. Members.

Mr. Clement Frend: I shall be very brief. I agree with very much of what was said by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). However, I must tell him that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the


Opposition's motion, which calls upon the Government
to reverse policies that conflict with their manifesto commitments".
It would be very wrong and very hard to argue with that.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) spoke substantially about constituency cases. I shall not do that, although as the husband of the president of the mentally handicapped society in my constituency I probably have as much day-to-day dealing with the handicapped as any-other hon. Member.
I remind the Government that they will be judged not only by what they do to enhance the prosperity of some of the people but, substantially, by the compassion that they show to those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to participate in a full life. I remind the Government—if they need reminding—that there are only two ways in which the disabled can be helped. The first is through finance. The second is through understanding.
I realise that in the first provision there is some limit, but I should like the Government to remember that there is no limit to compassion or understanding. Even if they are unable to support with the moneys that are available to quite the extent of funding they would want, there is no way in which they must any longer sanction the sort of local government behaviour that was pinpointed by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) and by others who have spoken—the failure to understand the problems of the handicapped.
I am against the provision of finite finance for the handicapped. If someone is unable to walk unaided I find it obscene that his crutches should come out of an annual budget, so that the handicapped get a reply such as "For this year we are unable to help." I realise that it is not as absolute as that, but there is still no effective charter. At the moment a percentage of the gross national product goes towards education, so much to defence and a specific percentage to the Department of Health and Social Security.
The term "disabled" is a generalisation that I would like to see steadily

qualified. There are so many specific instances of disablement that need separate care and attention : I have argued before about the claims of those who suffer from Huntington's chorea. Those cases are not in the general mill : they need specific and careful consideration. I said that I would be brief, and I shall be.
I should like some criterion for cuts. It is undisputed that the disabled will do less well than formerly. Perhaps the criterion should be that no one should have to accept cuts if he is unable to understand what they involve. If the Government bore that in mind, many bewildered and disabled people would not have to worry so much about their future.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: For many years the Conservative Party has gone to great pains to convince the electorate that it is a caring party and that the Socialist Party does not have a monopoly on compassion. The Conservative Party has a superb record, of which it can be proud. Between 1970 tad 1974 a Conservative Government spent more money, in real terms, than any Administration before or since. There is clear evidence in our recent legislation that we still care.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced increases of over 21 per cent. in mobility allowances. Family income supplement for lower-paid workers has been increased by more than one-third. Not only have benefits been protected ; they have been substantially increased. Why should we be held responsible for creating a shortfall in the increase in benefits for a section of the community which has been stricken through no fault of its own? Since coming to office the Government have earned a reputation for keeping rigidly to the manifesto. Since the turn of the century, they are probably the only Government to have stuck to their manifesto. If the Conservative Party abandons any of its pledges it will be a disgrace. To desert our manifesto on this issue would be shabby and unworthy.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the increases in benefit, he and the Secretary of State for Social Services said that the Government would bring short-term benefits into the tax range


by 1982. Even the Opposition found it difficult to object to that. The remaining long-term benefit for the disabled—known as disability benefit—will also be brought into the tax net. We are told that there is no need to wait until 1982 if we wish to tackle that problem. It is implied that the 11½ per cent. is a net amount after tax. However, we all know that that is incorrect. What about the 400,000 people who are in receipt of that benefit and who do not pay any tax? Their standard of living will fall, but it will fall behind those benefits which have been maintained despite inflation. Inflation is now running at 21·8 per cent. The increase of 11½ per cent. is about 52 per cent. of the rate of inflation.
The Government have not given an assurance that the shortfall will be made up next year. Nor have we had an assurance that the increase in disability benefit will include the amount that has been lost. The Government amendment rightly stresses the importance of voluntary organisations. Many disabled people are aware of the good work done by such groups. It is my experience that while the disabled may be deprived of good health they have not lost their pride and independence. Perhaps that is why so many of the severely disabled help each other.
How does one legislate for such people? They do not want to live in a society in which the State does everything. Surely we have a responsibility to ensure that they enjoy a decent standard of living within the confines of their disablement.
This is not an exercise in trailing one's conscience across the Floor of the House. I seek to make a constructive attempt to warn my party that this is not the stuff of which the Conservative Party is made.
An interim award should be made to the disabled not in 1981 but as soon as possible. The Government can recapture respect only if the Conservative Party shows that it has the interest of the disabled at heart. There is no moral justification for this action. We would be more credible and worthy if we thought the unthinkable and admitted that we were wrong.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I have had more letters about the needs of the disabled from Tories than from

Trots. Let us leave out the money factor and consider home helps. I shall not pick out a local authority. That would be unfair. However, many local authorities have heeded the Government's advice and have cut back on home helps and personal services.
Many local authorities have tried to keep the service going, but they are faced by increased wages. They have tried to cover their costs. As a result of cutbacks in local government grants, local authorities have been compelled to charge people for the home help service or to increase the charges levied.
What does the home help service do? It does a very important job. It keeps people within the community. The home help is a contact for disabled persons with the outside world. She enables disabled and frail elderly persons to live in their own homes and their own environment. It was assumed that if charges rose, relief would be given to the poorest in our society by means of supplementary benefit. The chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has said that, for the first time, local authorities are being compelled to impose charges that cannot be recovered from supplementary benefits. That has imposed severe burdens on the handicapped, who need the assistance of a home-help service.
Some handicapped people have had to do without such needs as food, heating and clothing. Disability incurs an extra cost. We speak about the compassionate society and about the need to keep people within the community. We then impose charges on the most vital service affecting the frail elderly and disabled. I urge the Government Front Bench to overturn their decision on supplementary benefit payments to those who pay for home help services because their local authority—as a result of Government cuts—has had to increase those charges. Another intolerable burden is being imposed.
Hazlitt said that man was the only animal who laughed and cried because he was the only animal who knew the difference between things as they were and things as they ought to be. We know how things should be. We know that we should assist the disabled. We know that we can have good rehabilitation services. For God's


sake, let us not cut the things that help to keep people within their homes and within their communities.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) be kind enough to resume his seat at 6.45 pm? The Front Benches have given him an extra five minutes.

Mr. Spriggs: Thank you Mr. Speaker. If I go over my time I hope that you will remind me.
I wish to raise two constituency cases, but before I do so may I say that I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the Opposition were being used by outside elements to attack the Government. No outside elements have ever tried to use me to attack the Government and I would not allow them to do so.
The first of my two cases is that of Wilfred Houghton, of 60 Claughton Street, St. Helens, who has been a Rain-hill mental hospital patient for a long time. He has not received a penny piece in benefits for the last nine to 12 months. He accepted his doctor's advice that he should not seek work, yet the local DHSS office in St. Helens has told him that unless he signs on for work, even against his doctor's advice, he will get no benefit. Because he accepts his doctor's advice and continues to attend Rainhill as an outpatient he receives no benefit at all.
The second case concerns Mr. Gardam, of 127 Forest Road, St. Helens, who is a serious cardiac case. In the week when he was told that if he did not sign the register for work he would not receive benefits, he had three minor heart attacks. Because the family had no money to buy groceries, his wife assisted him to the departmental office to sign the register, and then took him back home. What employer could employ such a sick man? What is the real human feeling of the departmental officers? Central government have done nothing about these cases, although they have received reports about them. Do they really believe that these people should sign on for work and overrule the advice of medical officers? If they do not do so they get no benefit

at all. What kind of central Government is this? We should not allow local officers of the DHSS or the Supplementary Benefits Commission to treat people so badly.
I make an impassioned appeal to the Government not to think of the Opposition as hon. Members who only sit and wait for an opportunity to attack them. That is not so. If the Government's administration or maladministration—as is shown in these two cases—is so bad, hon. Members have a duty to attack the Government. Government Members will no doubt remember that I attacked my own Government in the past when I believed that they were guilty of any form of maladministration. That is why I make this appeal. Mr. Gardam continues to have heart attacks although, according to his medical officer, they are minor. I do not want to have to charge any Minister or local departmental officer with murder, because if this man drops dead in his footsteps while attempting to sign the register someone will have to answer for it from the Front Bench or from the local office of the DHSS.
I wonder what the other case—Mr. Houghton—is expected to do. He was taken by the social services to Rainhill Hospital as an outpatient, where he was told that he must not register for work, but if he does not do so he will not receive benefits. What is a mentally sick man to do? I appeal to the Minister tonight to look into these cases and see that justice is done.

Mr. Alfred Morris: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, which many will think could, with advantage, continue for many more hours. Many important questions were put to the Minister that went unanswered. I raised with him the fear of many disabled people that the 3 per cent. employment quota might be discontinued. There was no reply. Then I raised the question of the proposed White Paper on the recommendations of the Warnock report. Again, there was no reply. There were other questions that I raised and I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer what were questions of very considerable importance to many disabled people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the statement of the Minister yesterday about the demonstration of


disabled people against his policies. We have been told that the Minister referred to the demonstration as phoney——

Mr. Prentice: That is not true. I did nothing of the sort. In a broadcast that was quoted by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) I said that many sincere and well-meaning people took part. But I also said that the contention of the demonstrators that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act was under attack was phoney, and indeed it was.

Mr. Morris: That seems a convoluted reply. The implication is that it was a phoney demonstration. Yet it was supported by the National Federation of the Blind, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Spastics Society, MIND, the British Polio Fellowship, the Campaign for Mentally Handicapped People, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the National Society for Autistic Children, the Shaftesbury Society, the Association of Community Health Councils, the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus and many other very deeply respected organisations. If that adds up to a phoney demonstration, or a demonstration with a phoney objective, or whatever the Minister is attempting to say in his convoluted language, it had one of the most distinguished lists of organisations ever to support such a venture.
I referred earlier to home help charges. At least 18 London boroughs have made savings in the home help service, by cuts or increased charges, or both. I referred earlier to the constituency of the Secretary of State. He represents part of the borough of Redbridge. I quote from a very valuable article by John Wilson in the London Voluntary News for May 1980. He says :
In Redbridge, the lowest rate of charge is now £1.50 which will have to be paid even by supplementary benefit recipients. This is particularly serious, for the Supplementary Benefits Commission has recently ceased to help claimants with the cost of local authority home helps.
The right hon. Gentleman earlier was making very great play with the meaning of the word "poorest". He was saying that the poorest are those on supplementary benefits. In Redbridge it is the people on supplementary benefits who

are now being charged for home helps in the Secretary of State's own constituency. I had the impression—I may be wrong—when I listened to the right hon. Gentleman that he would be making urgent representations to Redbridge about what is a deplorable act of policy. I hope that he will do so and make an early statement in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman heard the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier). That was a courageous speech. It was informed by sincerity. He was asking the Government to think again about policies about which he is not particularly proud as a Conservative Member of Parliament.
Again, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) made it very clear that he thought that the Government had "jumped the gun" in cutting the value of invalidity benefit from November. I argued earlier that it is not just the Opposition opposing the Government in this depate. I quoted from the Association of Directors of Social Service, from the Royal Association of Disability and Rehabilitation, from the Spastics Society, and from many other organisations that are in no way party-politically based.
With them, I ask the Government urgently to reconsider their policies in this deeply sensitive and important field. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill and talked about the attitude of the last Government. In the last Government his Bill, which was then advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainright), had a Second Reading with full support from the Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude by saying again that the House as a whole should know that the Government's actions are shortening the horizons and demeaning the dignity of disabled people. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will address himself to the very important questions that have been raised with the Government from both sides of the House and that he will do so in a way that indicates the Government's readiness to rethink policies that are so widely and so justifiably condemned.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): No one who has sat through


the debate could fail to be impressed by the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House for the disabled in our society. We have had some notable contributions from the old stalwarts with whom I used to attend the Back-Bench meetings of the all-party disablement group in the previous Session.
May I say without disrespect to the many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) made a most notable contribution that encompassed much of what was said in the earlier part of the debate. My hon. Friend's speech was complemented by that of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon), whose interest in these matters is well known. He was the joint secretary of the Back-Bench committee. The strength and feeling of the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) came through clearly in his speech.
In the time that is available I cannot respond to all the individual requests that have been made. However, I shall deal with the themes that ran through the speeches. Some of my hon. Friends have said that in times of difficulty extra effort should be made to shield the disabled from hardship. Labour Members have said that the record of the previous Labour Government was superior to that of the present Administration. That theme was developed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and in so doing he exhibited the symptoms of a distressing illness that attacks middle-aged politicians in opposition, namely, terminal amnesia.
The greatest cuts in the hospital building programme have not and will not take place under this Administration. They took place between 1973–74 and 1977–78 when capital resources available to the hospital and community health services in England were slashed from £672 million to £431 million. The biggest cuts in capital expenditure on personal social services have not and will not take place under the present Government. They took place between 1974 and 1978, when capital expenditure was slashed from £185 million, in the Conservative Government's last year in office, to £48 million in 1978–79. That was a

cut of roughly three-quarters. Our plans are for a recovery to £60 million in 1983–84.
Current expenditure on personal social services increased during the previous Conservative Government's last year in office by 14 per cent. It fell to 1·7 per cent. in 1977–78. We plan to restore it to 2·2 per cent. Against that background, we can only marvel at the cheek and hypocrisy of the Opposition in deploring, in the words of the motion, the "planned reduction in personal social services."
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe mentioned the problem that has faced the disabled over the past 13 months, and no one questions his sincerity. However, he forgot to mention the paralysis in the health and personal social services during the winter of discontent, when the problems facing many of the chronically sick and disabled were far greater than anything that he mentioned today. He forgot to mention the distress caused by the social workers' strike. I remind him of the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the then Secretary of State, who said :
Who are the victims of their action? Firstly the clients…there will have been countless cases of irreparable damage done by the decision of social workers to leave their clients stranded, in the lurch, unaided.
No hon. Member needs reminding of the countless cases of individual hardship caused by the industrial action of ancillary workers during that very winter when—[Interruption.] I realise that these are unpleasant memories, but I am dealing with the attacks that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman on my party.
In the right hon. Gentleman's trailer to the debate, which appeared yesterday in The Times, he set out a list of 100 initiatives. I especially resent the inclusion in his list of the extension of the attendance allowance to kidney patients dialysing at home. I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill in February 1978 which sought to restore that allowance——

Mr, Alfred Morris: Mr, Alfred Morris rose——

Sir G. Young: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is making no


attempt to reply to an important debate. He is grossly misleading——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. That cannot be a point of order for the Chair.

Sir G. Young: The right hon. Gentleman said——

Mr. Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Morris) knows perfectly well that when the Minister does not give way he keeps the Floor.

Mr. Orme: Absolutely disgraceful.

Sir G. Young: The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe sought to advance the case that the record of the previous Labour Administration was better than that of the present Administration. I am seeking to rebut the argument. He is claiming 100 initiatives for his Administration. I was instancing one case concerning kidney patients when the right hon. Gentleman blocked a Ten-Minute Bill that I introduced to help those patients. He has the gall to include measures in his list of initiatives which I sought to introduce but which he carefully obstructed.

Mr. Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless the Minister gives way, the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) knows that he cannot take the Floor.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Orme rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is giving a clear indication of what he intends to do.

Mr. Orme: He is not answering the debate.

Sur G. Young: I am seeking in the time available to rebut the case that was advanced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. He referred in his list of achievements to the attendance allowance being payable to foster parents of handicapped children. That payment started life as a Ten-Minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member

for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). It was put on the statute book by pressure in the House of Lords.
In producing a list of 100 initiatives the right hon. Gentleman has scraped his own barrel and helped himself very generously to ours. I spoke to members of the Lobby yesterday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. The disabled have a deeper understanding of the economic problems facing the nation than have many Labour Members. They recognise that further Government help must be related to the generation of wealth.
What we can afford to spend on health and social services depends on the growth of the vital industrial base upon which every aspect of our standard of living depends. We must invest more in industry, produce more goods at competitive prices and sell them abroad.
Those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North when he was Secretary of State.
During the debate there has been a temptation to believe that the problems of the disabled will be solved merely by the injection of public money. To say that that is the solution is to misunderstand the complexity of the problems : it is to undermine individual intitiatives that can be taken to solve some of the problems and to demoralise the more informal agencies and voluntary organisations that have a key role to play.
The Government have an obligation to provide a framework of income support and social policy within which the disabled may lead dignified and independent lives. We are committed to that, but that is not and never can be the total answer to the difficulties of the disabled. We must increase the capacity of the community to generate more self-help and to mobilise the good will that exists within the community that has not been harnessed.
We are interested in developing a genuine partnership with the voluntary organisations. For that reason we have given increased Government support for organisations. In the last year of the previous Administration the total budget for section 64 grants to voluntary organisations was £5·3 million—and they managed to underspend it by £860,000. This year we shall spend £7·3 million, and, within the broad category, grants to


organisations helping the disabled will increase from £850,000 to nearly £1 million.
The crossroads scheme was mentioned This scheme provides practical assistance to disabled people, and we are increasing substantially the grants to it as well as to other organisations. It is clear that within my Department's spending we have indicated our priority to the disabled by increasing the grants to the organisations that are active in this field, to generate more help and more resources with which to tackle their problems. We have continually exhorted the local authorities to protect, as far as they can, the services for the disabled. As my right hon. Friend said, the indications that we are getting from the local authorities are that they are respoding to our requests.
There is no group in our society that stands to gain more from the strengthening of the economy and the resumption of growth than the disabled. That is the only way that we can generate the resources to pay for the improved services that we all want to see. There is no group in our society that stands to lose more by a continuation of inflation. If those who work for the local authorities, and their leaders, insist on unrealistic wage demands, one consequence must be the reduction of services to this very category. Those who lend support to such irresponsible wage demands should be well aware of the consequences.
I ask my hon. Friends to remember that the real leaps in the growth of personal

Division No. 361]
AYES
[7.03 pm


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)


Adams, Allen
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Deakins, Eric


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Alton, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dempsey, James


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Dewar, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dixon Donald


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dobson, Frank


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)
Dormand, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Douglas, Dick


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bagler, Gordon A. T
Coleman, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
DuIfy, A. E. P.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Conlan, Bernard
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)


Beith, A. J
Cook, Robin F.
Dunnett, Jack


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cowans, Harry
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bidwell, Sydney
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Eastham, Ken


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crowther, J. S.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cryer, Bob
English, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tarn
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davidson, Arthur
Field, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Davles, Rt Hon Denzll (Llanelli)
Fitch, Alan


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

social services were made under the last Conservative Government. The rate of growth was over 15 per cent. from 1972 to 1975, and it has been unmatched since. It was during that period that the basic framework for the provision of social care for disabled people was established. It now enjoys a good measure of stability.

Mr. Orme: Mr. Orme rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not inclined to accept the motion.

Sir G. Young: The provision of social care for the disabled now enjoys a good measure of stability, and that stands disabled people in good stead. Let there be no doubt that, as the economic climate brightens, we can do what we have done before. Our firm priority will be to increase services and benefits for disabled people. Our record of achievement in this area enables my hon. Friends to vote with pride and confidence for the amendment.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made certain charges on a constituency basis. The Minister has not answered them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot be a point of order for the Chair.

Question put. That the original words stand part of the Question :—

The House divided : Aves 222, Noes 281.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Ford, Ben
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ryman, John


Forrecter, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sandelson, Neville


Foster, Derek
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Sever, John


Foulkes, George
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Sheerman, Barry


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Freud, Clement
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Short, Mrs Renée


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Magee, Bryan
Silverman, Julius


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Smith, Rt Hon j. (North Lanarkshire)


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Snape, Peter


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maxton. John
Soley, Clive


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Roben
Spearing, Nigel


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Or M. S. (East Kilbride)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hattarsley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Helfer, Eric S.
Morton, George
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tilley, John


Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Newens, Stanley
Trippier, David


Home Robertson, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Homewood, William
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Horam, John
O'Neill, Martin
Watkins, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Howells, Geralnt
Palmer, Arthur
Wellbeloved, James


Huckfield, Les
Park, George
Welsh, Michael


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John
White, Frank R. (Bury ft Radcllffe)


Janner, Hon Greville
Parry, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Whillock. William


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Willey. Rt Hon Frederick


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Race, Reg
Winnick, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Woolmer. Kenneth


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kilfedder, James A.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wright, Sheila


Kilroy-Sllk, Robert
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)



Lambie, David
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr, James Finn.


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.



Leadbitter, Ted






NOES


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dorrell, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Hon Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg ft Sc'thorpe)
Dover, Denshore


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bruce-Gardyne, John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Ancram, Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Durant, Tony


Aspinwall, Jack
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Budgen, Nick
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Bulmer, Esmond
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Burden, F. A.
Eggar, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John
Emery, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butler, Hon Adam
Eyre, Reginald


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Falrgrieve, Russell


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Farr, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fell, Anthony


Best, Keith
Channon, Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Blackburn, John
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cockeram, Eric
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Colvin, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford ft St)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cope, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bowden, Andrew
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Brains, Sir Bernard
Costaln, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bright, Graham
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Brinton, Tim
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brittan, Leon
Dickens, Geoffrey
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Goodhart, Philip
Major, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Goodhew, Victor
Marland, Paul
Rossi, Hugh


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Tony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott, Nicholas


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Greenway, Harry
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, Richard(Aldrldge-Br'hills)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Silvester, Fred


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Mellor, David
Speed, Keith


Gummer, John Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speller, Tony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew II)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Squire, Robin


Hannam, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanley, John


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Hector
Slevens, Martin


Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Heddle, John
Moore, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Henderson, Barry
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Tapseil, Peter


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


Hill, James
Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Murphy, Christopher
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hooson, Tom
Myles, David
Thompson, Donald


Hordern, Peter




Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Neale, Gerrard Needham, Richard
Thorne, Neil (llford South) Thornton, Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Newton, Tony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nott, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick




Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wakeham, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Waldegrave, Hon William


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parris, Matthew
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pattern, Christopher (Bath)
Wall, Patrick


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waller, Gary


Knox, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Lamont, Norman
Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Lang, Ian
Percival, Sir Ian
Warren, Kenneth


Langford-Holl, Sir John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Latham, Michael
Pollock, Alexander
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Lawrence, Ivan
Porter, George
Wheeler, John


Lawson, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lee, John
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Whitney, Raymond


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wickenden, Keith


Lester, Jim (Beston)
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Lloyd, Peter (Farenam)
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Loverldge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wolfson, Mark


Lyell, Nicholas
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McCrindle, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert
Younger, Rt Hon George


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rifkind, Malcolm



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, aware of the desire of disabled people to live independent lives in their own homes and of the economic advantages for the nation of allowing them to do so,

recognises that, as two of the largest spending programmes, Social Security and Health and Personal Social Services must make some contribution to the inescapable reduction in public spending required by the economic situation inherited by the Government last year ; welcomes the valuable and increasing services for disabled people provided by the voluntary sector ; and looks forward to the Government giving a high priority to improving services and support for disabled people when additional resources become available.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the policies of Her Majesty's Government which have led to a widespread and accelerating decline in the building industry, and have resulted in the number of unemployed building workers rising to over 200,000 ; deplores the massive cuts in council house building planned by the Government for the current year and future years, the proposed reductions in public sector capital works and the intended reduction in publicly-financed civil engineering projects which have created the worst prospects for the building industry and its employees since the previous depression of the 1930s ; and calls upon the Government to introduce and implement policies which will protect the industry from imminent collapse.
The building industry is facing its worst crisis since the slump of the 1930s. Not even the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose passion for providing clear and accurate information to the House he is normally able to keep well under control, will be able to juggle the figures tonight to suggest otherwise.
I notice that the amendment does not attempt to argue with the premise on which our complaint is based. It is an amalgamation of ritual abuse and shallow thinking. I can only assume that the Secretary of State wrote it himself.
In case the right hon. Gentleman is tempted to argue that the deterioration in the building industry, and the contraction industry in general, is not as disastrous and potentially disastrous as I insist, let me begin by reminding him of the construction industry's recession as defined by the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, two bodies not notorious for their support of the Labour Party. In the bulletin that they provided especially for today's debate, they make two points :
The civil engineering industry…is continuing to decline to an all time low—all time lows in order books, in employment and in plant utilisation.
Their second point is equally gloomy :
The building industry has turned sharply downwards after two years of modest recovery

… and unprecedented reversal in the space of six months".
I suspect that both federations are beginning to wonder whether all the money that they spent on securing a Tory victory was a wise investment.
The gloom expressed by those two federations is echoed, and in a sense preceded by and given an authoritative voice, by the National Economic Development Office, whose figures are clear, and describe the most serious crisis facing the industry. It makes the point beyond doubt that conditions in the building industry are bad, likely to get worse and eventually much worse. Providing the statistics at 1975 prices, NEDO tells us that in 1982 construction output will be around £10,755 million. In the last year of the Labour Government, on comparable figures, output was £1,200 million more. If one compares the NEDO figures of what is at the end of the road followed by the Government with what was there when they came into office, thre can be no argument that by 1982 planned output in the construction industry will be 5 per cent. worse than at any time during the previous 15 years.
All reports from the industry—and I shall be interested in the Secretary of State's comments—suggest that as a result of the sudden decline, there are, or shortly will be, about 200,000 unemployed building workers. That is certainly the estimate of two employers' federations and of the trade union. The Employment Gazette states that the interpretation of employment and unemployment figures in the building and construction industry is notoriously difficult. I hope that the Secretary of State will attempt an estimate so that we can see whether the employers and unions are right when they say that we face having 200,000 or more unemployed building workers-Mr. Michael Morris (Northampton, South): Will the right hon. Gentleman be covering in his speech the fact that in February 1977 there were 227,000 unemployed workers in the construction industry?

Mr. Hattersley: I am tempted to say "wait and see", but in order to gratify the hon. Gentleman, let me assure him that I shall be referring to that. It is no part of my argument to suggest that there


was not a decline in the building industry during the five years of Labour government. However, I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's usual justification, which goes something like this : since there was a small decline in the previous five years, that is an absolute justification for a massive decline now. That is a point of logic which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will develop, and no doubt the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) will want to join him in making that fatuous point.
I return to the question of unemployed building workers. There are 200,000 or more men who could and should be building houses, hospitals and schools and doing all the things that the country desperately needs.
Much of that unemployment and all the reduction in output between 1978 and 1982 is the result of wilful and intentional Government policy. The construction industry suffers grievously from two Government decisions—the deliberate creation of a slump as an alternative to a genuine economic policy and the co-ordinated attack on public expenditure which is a product of the Government's manic preoccupation with money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement.
As the Government have remorselessly depressed the economy, the building industry has increasingly become a sort of economic regulator, deliberately forced into decline to slow down the pace of the rest of manufacturing industry and to help limit output throughout the economy as a whole.
No sector of the economy suffers more damage from what passes in Government circles for economic management—uniquely high interest rates, an overvalued pound and, above all, accelerating inflation rates. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that those factors, particularly accelerating inflation rates and the level of interest rates, have a most malign, indeed disastrous, influence on the building industry.
When the construction industry was last debated in the House, the right hon. Gentleman was precise about the problem. He said that the industry was suffering from a rate of inflation

that is incompatible with the survival of our nation and the existence of a free society ".—[Official Report, 26 November 1976 ; Vol. 921 c. 366.]
The inflation rate that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to was 15 per cent—about two-thirds of the rate that the Government have managed over the past year.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to dilate more about the problems of the building industry by saying :
in Britain, virtually alone of the the world's major countries, it now costs almost 18 per cent. to borrow money to build houses.
Those were the days. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what has gone wrong since then. [HON. MEMBERS : "Clegg ".] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also comment on the third point of his speech and perhaps he will have an answer as incisive and intel-lecutal as "Clegg" for that as well. He said :
few people…can face the consequences of an over 12 per cent. mortgage interest rate."—[Official Report, 26 November 1976 ; Vol. 921, c. 366–367.]
It was, he said, no wonder that fewer houses were being built. How many home-buyers does the right hon. Gentleman think can afford the consequences of the mortgage rate that his Government have managed over the past six months? More important, how long does he think that that rate will continue?
I was going to say—I confess that it is in my notes—that I hoped that the Secretary of State would spare us the bald assertion that no economic policy other than that managed by the Government would see us through these difficult days. But it is all too clear from his sedentary interventions up to now that he intends to make exactly that point.
The idea that the Government have somehow found the magic secret of economic success grows less plausible and more ridiculous every day, as every economic indicator turns in the wrong direction. The Government are also losing friends on the economic front with every day that passes.
The London Business School, once the fount of all Tory economic wisdom, tells the Government that they are wrong. Conservative Back Benchers are falling over themselves to write articles for serious newspapers telling the Chancellor of


the Exchequer how he could put things right. The Guardian recorded three such articles on a single day this week. What is more, half of the Cabinet no longer believe that the sole reliance on monetary policy and reductions in public expenditure will see the economy through its present difficulties.
I hope that, when the U-turn comes, the Secretary of State will not be the last boy standing on the burning deck. That is not a role which any of us would have anticipated his taking up ; and I do not think that he would carry out that function with great grace or familiarity.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend talked about the Cabinet being in disarray. The Secretary of State is known as Tarzan to some because it was claimed that he was strong and was as committed to Tory policy as the Iron Lady. However, the Prime Minister found out that he was not that committed and had not been attacking local authorities as much as she wished. She sent him a note a couple of days ago——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Skinner: The Prime Minister said in that note that while she was away in Venice going around in gondolas and living in a place that costs £100 a night—with the British taxpayer picking up the bill—the Secretary of State had to make sure that he cut back even more than he has cut back.

Mr. Hattersley: I am not privy to those secrets, and if what my hon. Friend says is true I do not want to intrude into private grief. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend is not making a point with which I disagree, even though that is an extraordinary state of affairs.
I read with interest the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that she would keep right on to the end of the road. It seemed to me that that statement was made with all the frenzy of a woman who was about to change her mind. I hope that when the Secretary of State makes the bald assertion that the Government's economic policy is right in every detail, he will bear that point in mind.
The building industry is being damaged for the sake of a discredited economic policy. The NFBTE said :

The Government squeeze on public construction expenditure is planting the seeds of destruction for its own counter-inflation and economic policies.
I do not believe that any sensible economic commentator would not agree with that view. When the Secretary of State has told us, as I am sure he will, that the Government's economic policy is moving in the right direction and that any disturbing of it would jeopardise the great successes that the Government have had over inflation exports, investment or employment, I have no doubt that he will turn to the point that does not run hand in hand with that, namely, that the situation cannot be so bad because something similar happened under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Northampton, South. It is no part of my case to say that there was not a reduction in the activity of the construction industry over those five years, though, as all the figures show and as all the commentators agree, there was a substantial upturn during the final 18 months.
However, I do not understand the argument that, since there was once a cut, it is an excuse or a justification for cumulative cuts which pile upon the original reduction. The Opposition argue that a sector that has previously been reduced ought to be protected in the future, because otherwise one cut piles on another.
Our complaint against the Government is that, the country having lived through five years in which activity in the building industry reduced by about 2 per cent. per annum, they are trying to use that as a justification for cutting at rather more than twice the rate. That is the figure which appears in their White Paper and which is forecast by NEDO.
This is a short debate and many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I wish to deal in the few minutes that I shall allow myself with some specific areas—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Northampton, South wishes to try to do better this time than he did last time, I shall willingly give way.

Mr. Michael Morris: I shall make my contribution in a minute.

Mr. Hattersley: We look forward to that with eager anticipation.
I wish to turn to specific areas that have caused the decline in the industry. They are, in part, the result of overall economic policy but also the result of the attack on public expenditure, particularly capital expenditure, enshrined in the White Paper published in March this year. Particular to all those reductions—there is a reduction across the board for all capital works—is the reduction in housing expenditure. Will the Secretary of State tell us one or two things about which he has previously been coy concerning housing expenditure over the next three years?
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the White Paper tells us nothing about housing forecasts. It has blank columns where the forecasts ought to be found. The right hon. Gentleman has refused point blank to give estimates for new starts, new building and capital work in the years that lie ahead. I am not surprised that he has refused. I am not surprised that he is denying the House information to which it is entitled. The record as well as the prospect would be so awful that I understand exactly why the Secretary of State does not want to reveal the information.

Mr. Michael Latham: Before the right hon. Gentleman asks too many questions, will he answer one, if only for the benefit of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? Does "Building Britain's Future" remain Labour Party policy?

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether I believe that the public sector of the building industry should be increased, the answer is that of course I do. I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Gentleman on 47 sittings of the Committee. He persists in asiking easy questions in a tone that implies that they are dicult to answer. Of course, I believe that there should be an extension of the public sector building industry. If he wishes, he can tell that to his friends in the building industry, together with the answer he got from me on the public ownership of land. The hon. Gentleman can keep a compendium of my sayings which I will sign and which he can pass around.
In the meantime, I wish to ask the Secretary of State some questions about

housing. I understand why he will be reluctant to answer, because of the grief among Tory Members about his record. I had the privilege of appearing on a television programme with the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), who, I understand, is chairman of the Back Bench housing committee. The hon. Gentleman made what I regard as a definitive, as well as a most poignant, comment about the Government's housing record. He said :
I am not sitting here saying I am proud of what they have done.
I was so astounded by the hon. Gentleman's remarks that I checked with the BBC to make sure that those were his actual words. They were. I understand why he is not proud. I understand why that absence of pride in him produces a reticence about the figures in his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Durant: The right hon. Gentleman, as usual, has taken the remarks out of context. I said that, although I was not proud of the record, it is a necessary step at the present time.

Mr. Hattersley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not what he said. I shall be glad to give him a transcript, if he so wishes. The absence of pride in the hon. Gentleman is worth noting. It accounts for the Secretary of State's reluctance to provide the House with details of how many houses he expects to be built over the next two years and what is the likely effect on the construction industry.
The overwhelming evidence—his right hon. Gentleman's Department's press notices, the forecasts by NEDO and the estimates of the employers—is that house building will decline in the public sector this year to new starts that barely total 40,000 or 45,000. Everyone else is prepared to make an estimate. The only absence of estimates is the Secretary of State's. The right hon. Gentleman has a special obligation. This matter affects not only the welfare and happiness of many thousands of families but an industry crucial to our future. It is an industry in which bankruptcy and unemployment increase every day.
The right hon. Gentleman has an obligation to inform the House of what he believes will be the capital allocation for public sector housing over the next two


years. He has a special obligation because of events during the last 24 hours. The first was the publication on the front page of a respected and authoritative newspaper—the Financial Times—of the statement that the Government were contemplating giving up public sector building altogether. The second is the manner in which the Home Secretary floundered in his attempts to answer that question, when pressed, during the Prime Minister's Question Time today. The third is the statement that I understand was made at 10 Downing Street, during this morning's Lobby briefing, that a total moratorium on council house building is one of the matters being considered by the Government.
In the light of those three facts, the Secretary of State owes it to the House to say what are his intentions in this crucial area—an area that affects the welfare of thousands of families who need and want another house but also an area that is at the core of the stimulus that should be provided for the building industry.
It is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friend's that the controlled expansion that is possible in this country if the economy is to be run sensibly should begin with a stimulation of economic activity through wise public investment in a number of industries. First among them ought to be construction. I do not expect the Secretary of State to accept that view of the economy. I do expect him to fulfil some of his obligations to the industry, to the House and to the country by telling us what he believes to be the future of the industry. I expect that for two reasons. First, it is his duty. Secondly, I do not believe that any self-respecting Secretary of State would remain in office during a period in which council house building had been brought to a complete halt. While that would not happen to a self-respecting Secretary of State, I would not be at all surprised if it happened to this one. I share the view of the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Sub-Contractors, one of the contributing members to CABIN, which puts so much money where its mouth no longer is, in supporting the Conservative Party, in its judgment of the Secretary of State's stewardship of the building industry. It says

Michael Heseltine apparently does not care about the construction industry…He does not even answer our letters…The Secretary of State only seems willing to talk to a select group of his cronies from the establishment big business end of the industry.
That does not surprise me. Our view is that the small end of the industry should be expanded and helped. There should be an interest rate that enables them to succeed and survive. There should be some pump priming to provide work for both building and civil engineering. Because that is not happening and because the position is bound to deteriorate, I move this resolution.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
this House, recognising that a vigorous and profitable construction industry can only grow from a prosperous economy, rejects the failed and discredited prescriptions of the Opposition and supports the Government in its policies to provide a sound basis for the prosperity of the construction industry.".
I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the construction industry. He has rightly reminded us that it is some time since we held a debate on this subject. As he recalls, I took part in that debate. There is no doubt that the construction industry is extremely diversified and has an immense influence within the economy, whether in manufacturing industry, transport, commercial property, schools or housing. It is at the heart of the economic fabric of the nation.
I have looked to see where I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have great sympathy with the argument developed by parts of the construction industry over recent years that it has been too easy an option, taken by the Government in times of economic pressure, to cut new capital expenditure when they should have been pursuing policies to control excessive current expenditure.
The House will, I am sure, agree that that has been a constant element in the depressing economic record of the nation since the war. For five years the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was so prominent a member, pursued policies to achieve exactly that


result. My discussions with many people in the building industry in recent months convince me that they understand, even if they regret the pressures that flow as a consequence and the need for a change of direction, which present economic measures are part of ensuring, if we are not to continue the downward spiral to which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) contributed so conspicuously as an adviser to the last Labour Government.
We are not in dispute about whether the hon. Gentleman advised the Government, but he must be depressed that the Government that he advised managed to reduce expenditure on goods and services in their five years in office. The only reason why the Labour Government managed to put up public expenditure figures is that they borrowed so much in their five years in office that the mounting annual debt interest forced public expenditure to totally unsustainable levels. They based future growth on unrealistic assumptions.
If the Labour Party had won the last election, a Labour Government would have had to make another round of announcements of the type that they made when faced with the logic of their failed economic policies. They were totally unable to deliver the promises that now flow from their lips in Opposition. Any dispassionate analysis of what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says must take into account the total failure for which his Government were responsible. We are determined to break out of the vicious circle of decline.
The right hon. Gentleman might giggle now that he has no responsibility, but he should examine the record. In 1974 the output of the construction industry fell by 10 per cent. from the previous year. A year later it fell by a further 6 per cent. In several months of 1976, 1977 and 1978 unemployment in the industry was estimated to be over 220,000. A month ago it was about 190,000.
For all the language used by the right hon. Gentleman, the horror that he portrays and the shock that he suggests, he was happy for year after year to be a member of a Government who were responsible for unemployment levels in the construction industry higher than those

about which he now complains. Perhaps the House should be reminded of some of the more unpalatable consequences o1 the last five years.
In 1976, the point at which the unsustainable nature of the policies that we inherited had to be recognised when the IMF was established at the Treasury, there was a cut of £2 billion in pubic expenditure. That was announced by the Government of the day and supported by the majority of Labour Members. Where did they find the £2 billion?

Mr. Hattersley: Not from the construction industry.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is in difficulty. He is new to the job. It is true that £2 billion was not lound in that way. Just £1·4 billion of the cuts fell on capital programmes.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the circular that my predecessor, the Secretary of State in the Labour Government, sent to local authorities explaining the policies that were necessary as a result of the early years of Labour government. It stated :
The Government's aim has been to ensure, as far as possible, that the measures proposed do not have an adverse effect on employment. With the exception of certain cuts in education, the proposed reduction in expenditure affects capital rather than current expenditure figures.
I am at a loss to understand what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. Is he arguing that we should cut capital spending more, so that current expenditure is higher? I gained the impression that he was criticising us for allowing capital cuts, but that was what he suggested protected employment when his Government were in power. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to weary himself with such historic facts. Before he tries to wipe the slate clean his legitimate responsibility is to check what solutions were available to him and his colleagues and which were chosen.

Mr. Haitersley: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his benevolent mood, will assist further in my education in the subject on which he is an expert. One of the figures that he omitted was the difference in output between the two years—the crisis years about which he talked— 1976 and 1977. They are important.

Mr. Heseltine: That depends on whether one takes what is actually spent or the programme figures of the last Government. If the right hon. Gentleman has the figures, it would be helpful if he put them before the House. The only figures that are crucial in this respect are the overall reductions in all public expenditure programmes which the last Government's policies forced upon that Government. When they had to make reductions, they made them largely in capital programmes. No matter what they may say, or may have wanted to believe, they were forced down the spiral of disinvestment. They know that as well as I.

Mr. Durant: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned a television programme on which I appeared. He apologised on that same programme for the Labour Government's record and said that he was not very proud of it.

Mr. Heseltine: We have established that the programme was compulsive viewing. If the right hon. Gentleman apologised, that is to the good.
I was asked about a moratorium on on capital spending, particularly on local authority housing. I was asked whether the Government had considered that. Of course, the Government have considered it, for an obvious reason. When we examined the present levels of overspending in local authority budgets and considered the range of options, we were advised that in identical circumstances the last Labour Government had imposed a moratorium on capital programmes.

Mr. Jack Straw: Not on council house building.

Mr. Heseltine: I did not say on council building. I said that they imposed a moratorium on capital programmes. When this Government considered the options, they were bound to consider the actions pursued by the previous Government. However, there is no question of my announcing tomorrow a capital moratorium on local government programmes. I shall send out a circular tomorrow explaining the Government's views about the projected overspend by local authorities. I shall not announce a capital moratorium tomorrow.

Mr. Straw: As the Secretary of State is not to announce a moratorium tomorrow, will he tell the House how many council houses he expects to be built in the next year?

Mr. Heseltine: That was the point that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend raised with me. He has asked me many times to give figures for the projected building of local authority houses. I have explained to the House why I will not do that, and I shall explain again. For two or three years I was the official spokesman for the Tory Opposition when my predecessor was involved in producing figures indicating what the outturns were likely to be in this circumstance. Those figures were always wrong. The reason why they were always wrong was that the only way my Department could know them was if it relied upon the details submitted by 400 local authorities.
As we are affording a degree of discretion to those authorities about how they allocate their resources, and as they will not, in many cases—particularly in the next financial year—have made up their minds about where they will allocate resources, it is ludicrous for me to go down the road which so obsessed the then Government, despite the fact that they got the figures wrong year after year.
What Opposition members cannot understand is that they continued to produce White Papers containing precise figures for the level of public expenditure in housing—divided into blocks—and when I took over responsibility for the Department of the Environment one of the first things that I found was that the level of spending on the construction of new houses by local authorities was hundreds of millions of pounds below the figure published in the White Paper. That was because local authorities took no notice of the projections in the White Paper. They made up their own minds. The Government were therefore always a long way behind the movement of opinion in local government.
It is one of the great illusions of the Labour Party that, somehow or other, that was something to do with the change of political control from Labour to Conservative in the late 1970s. The reality is that the cuts in capital programmes by Labour-controlled authorities were within one percentage point of the average


cuts in Conservative-controlled authorities on housing expenditure.
I shall tell the House in the frankest language that I can use how I see the situation, because it is better to avoid producing spurious figures for the sake of answering questions to which there is genuinely no answer than to produce figures which, on any historical determination, will prove to be invalid.
I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that of course there are reductions in local authority housing expenditure programmes. That is a phenomenon that has characterised recent years. Like any Minister responsible for a spending programme, I would obviously like to have more resources to spend, but, faced with the realities of the economic situation, one must—as the Labour Party did—judge priorities. We have had to make reductions just as the previous Labour Government did.
The question with which the House and the construction industry should be pre-occupied is whether there is a way in which the industry can attain the lasting economic upturn that we seek unless we are able to create an economic climate in which there is a lasting long-term future. There is no conceivable way in which the high levels of public expenditure that have characterised recent years, together with high levels of inflation during those years, can, in the long term, do anything other than work against the best interests of the construction industry. We are determined, and we shall pursue our determination, to see through the policies which could not by now have been expected to work but which we believe will, in the medium and longer term, deliver the results that we have in mind.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The Secretary of State says that he will not tomorrow announce a moratorium on council house building under local authority capital programmes. Will he say that he has also ruled out the possibility of making such an announcement in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Heseltine: I shall send out a circular.

Mr. Hattersley: Answer the question.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall answer.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: "Yes" or "No. ".

Mr. Heseltine: I need the opportunity to get out a few words in order to answer the question. I shall make clear in my circular the Government's views about the budgeted overspend by local authorities. I shall explain that when they can see what the revisions of those budgets are the Government will, in the light of circumstances, have to consider what, if anything, they should do.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Mr. Allan Roberts rose——

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will understand, because his party when in government had to understand against its best wishes, though without choice, that any Government faced with the public expenditure problems that we now experience must keep the options as open as circumstances demand. It is no use Labour Members pretending that, somehow or other, they would not have done the same. They not only had to do it ; they had to do it time and time again.
I believe that the House, the country and the construction industry will understand that this is a much wider issue than that on which the debate is focused tonight. The issue is wider than the specific, though important, problem of the construction industry.

Mr. Robert Parry: Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange) rose——

Mr. Heseltine: No, I really cannot give way. This is a short debate. I nearly always give way, but that means that I speak for a longer time. That does not serve the interests of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak. If I may be forgiven, I should like to make another important point.
If we accept, as the previous Government were forced to accept—and this Government willingly accept—that there is a need to establish a sympathetic economic climate, we must work for it. There are many things that the Government can do—and I believe that they are doing them—to ensure that when the climate improves a great range of those inhibitions which currently surround the construction industry—and did so previously—will be removed. I believe


that the record of this Government will be seen to have been a good one in tackling some of the logjam that we have encountered too often in the past.

Mr. Robert Adley: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think it impertinent of be if I intervene. He may not be aware that there are companies that have sufficient faith in the future, as a result of Government policies, to invest their money in work that is bringing considerable benefit to the construction industry. If I am allowed to quote a company with which I am connected—Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada—we are now investing £1 million a month in new construction in the United Kingdom. That is a mark of our faith in the future of the economy.

Mr. Heseltine: The welcome that I give to the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is exceeded only by the disdain that I feel for Opposition Members who laugh at the idea of new investment taking place in Britain. That laughter is characteristic of hon. Members. Good news of more investment is a subject of derision to the Opposition. They will have to explain that derision on a wider stage than this.
In sector after sector the Government are tackling many of the constraints which characteristically, held back the construction industry. For the first time we are tackling the problems of unused and under-used land in our major cities. We shall have registers shortly in 21 of our largest cities, where there are opportunities not only for environmental improvement but for construction industry jobs that will follow the release of land.
We are rationalising the problems of the two-tier system in the planning machinery. We have made great changes to the industrial building allowance for premises, and we have announced proposals for enterprise zones and urban development corporations. We are rationalising and streamlining planning procedures, and we are publishing statistics which show how long it takes planning authorities to reach decisions and how long it takes my Department to reach decisions on appeal.
We are examining building controls, and we have abolished office development

permits. We have greatly reduced the need for industrial development certificates, and we have just reached a voluntary agreement on the time taken by statutory undertakers to reach their conclusions with local planning authorities.
There is a whole range of activity in which the Government have acted to remove the irritants which I believe will frustrate the advance of this industry when the economic climate is right. We are reviewing the general development order, thus releasing certain small developments from the need for planning permission.
I now announce an extension of a major area of my responsibility. I should like to explain that I have now set in hand major improvements in the way in which the planning appeals system works. As from next month, planning inspectors will be able to give instant decisions in appropriate cases. When the parties ask for such a procedure and the case falls within appropriate guidelines, the inspector will give an indication of his decision right after the inquiry. This will enable the appellant and the local authority to know where they stand weeks before they otherwise would. I believe that these arrangements will apply ultimately in a large number of cases.
There are no easy solutions. I am not pretending that we have a palliative for the construction industry or the economy at large. However, I profoundly believe, as the Labour Government found, that the need to pursue economic policies that are designed to cure inflation and reduce the pre-emption of resources to the public sector are an indispensable part of returning strength to the national economy.
I believe that we shall be seen as a Government who tackled many of the administrative and legislative hurdles that obstruct the expansion of the construction industry. But I believe that we would be doing the industry the greatest possible harm if we gave the impression that within a year of coming into office we would give in and implement the temporising and ill-considered, short-term judgments which characterised the Labour Government and which have now so obviously become central to the Labour Party's new economic direction.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: From listening to the Secretary of State, one would almost imagine that we were at an Oxford Union debate. One would not realise that we are talking about the lives of thousands of people, whether they are people looking for council houses, people looking for work in the industry, or people connected with the building materials industry.
I do not defend the record of my Government on housing and construction. I did not defend it when my Government were in office, and I do not so now. When my party was in Government I probably made more Back-Bench speeches about the construction industry than anyone else. I did so because I was and am a member of UCAT. I worked almost all my life in the construction industry before coming into the House, with the exception of a few years spent in the Royal Air Force during the war.
I am concerned tonight about the people in the industry, about their lives, their future and about what will happen to their families. I am not interested in a debate conducted in the way that the Secretary of State has conducted it up to now. I do not want phoney statistics thrown across the Floor of the Chamber, and neither do the people outside. They want to know precisely what the future holds for their industry.
One Conservative Member said that the employers seemed to understand what was happening and were quite happy with it. Is that true? If it is, why have the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors sent a brief to Members of Parliament putting forward four points about the recession in the industry? Those bodies say :
"(i) the civil engineering industry, which has no private sector alternative to its predominantly public investment clients, is continuing its decline to all-time lows in order-books, employment, plant utilisation, etc ;
(ii) the building industry has turned sharply downwards after two years' modest recovery and the measure of enquiries for new work has switched from 2 to 1 in favour of an improvement to 1 to 3 on the negative side—an unprecedented reversal in the space of six months ;
(iii) the NEDO Forecast anticipates a decline in total output by 1982 to a level almost

5 per cent. below the trough of the previous post-1974 recession ;
(iv) the bulk of this decline is likely to occur, and be led, in the public sector, and to be exacerbated by the inability of the private sector in the short term to make good the fallback,"
So where is the NFBTE showing an understanding of the Government's policy? Where are all those employers who say that what the Government are doing is a fine thing, bearing in mind that in the brief to hon. Members they are saying that the industry has never been in a worse position? I do not defend what my Government did, but what is happening now to the industry is far worse.
The Secretary of State cannot slide out of this by making phoney debating points across the Floor of the House. He and his hon. Friends had better understand that the people in the construction industry—whether they are on my side in the unions or on the employers' side— are fed up with what the Government are doing to the industry.
It is worth referring here to figures contained in Cmnd 7841 in relation to the housing position. The figures are for total public expenditure by programme. For 1979–80 it gives a figure of £5,372 million. For 1980–81 the figure is £4,700 million; for 1981–82, £3,840 million ; for 1982–83, £3,250 million ; and for 1983–84, £2,790 million. Those figures show clearly the constant reduction in housing programme expenditure that the Government are putting forward as a positive policy. Those are not my figures. They are the Secretary of State's figures, and he cannot get out of that. They can mean only a worse decline for the industry, because over 50 per cent. of its work is for the public sector.

Mr. Den Dover: So far.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, so far. The figure was 50 per cent., but with this lot in power it will be reduced to about 10 per cent. But of course, if there is a moratorium for about nine months nothing will be done in the construction industry. The Secretary of State cannot get away with saying that he is not announcing the halt tomorrow. We understand that, but what about next week, the week after, next month, or the month after that? It is quite clear from what the Secretary of State said that the Government will


announce it and that they have made up their mind.
The Government had better repudiate what the extremely important article in the Financial Times says today. I want the Secretary of State to say that there is not a word of truth in that article. He has not said that in the House tonight. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out, he said quite the opposite.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Helfer: Not just at the moment.

Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is never much help.

Mr. Heffer: I usually give way to my hon. Friends, but that distracts me from my argument. This is no joking matter. I can tell the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) that the construction industry and those who work in it do not regard this as a laughing matter. I do not think that my colleagues—building workers who are unemployed—will see anything funny in it. There is nothing funny about the 91,000 unemployed in Liverpool, a great many of them building workers. The Conservatives; should understand that it is time that we in this House discussed these matters seriously and concerned ourselves with the real issues.
There is another important point in the Financial Times today on page 6. It states :
The continuing gloomy outlook for almost all areas was reflected in the latest workload survey, conducted by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which provides a guide to future building levels.
Architects' workloads have fallen for the third successive quarter. Value of new commissions at constant prices was 25·3 per cent. lower in the first quarter than at the same stage a year ago.
There is nothing laughable about that. Conservative Members should not make glib, phoney speeches and think that they can get away with it. They cannot get away with it.
We face the problems of a declining housing industry, and a civil engineering industry that will go out of existence unless there is a fundamental change in public expenditure. All other aspects of the industry, even private building, are

badly affected by the Government's policy, especially high interest rates. It is a disastrous position. The Secretary of State and his colleagues approach the problem in a doctrinaire manner. They also adopt a doctrinaire attitude towards direct labour organisations.
It is essential that we introduce a policy of decasualisation. That is essential. Perhaps the Secretary of State has no experience of the casual nature of the construction industry. Construction workers constantly wonder where their next jobs will be when their present contract has finshed. Unemployment is not unknown to them—it is part of their lives. That is why they have to travel all over the country to seek employment. I did not hear one word from the Secretary of State about the Government's attitude towards create apprenticeships in the industry. Yet at the same time the Government are abolishing the Construction Industry Manpower Board, which should have been responsible for creating apprenticeships. The Government's policies are disastrous.
I should have liked to speak at much greater length, and to have outlined the alternatives that the Labour Party has set out in the publication "Building Britain's Future". I see that the Secretary of State is nodding his head. He thinks that the document refers mainly to public ownership. That proves, as usual, his ignorance on the matter. The only proposals on public ownership contained in the document are first, that we should establish a national building corporation that could compete with major companies, secondly, that we should develop direct labour organisations as municipal enterprises, and thirdly, that we should help to organise co-operatives at the bottom level. Those are our proposals. They are only one small part of the document, which deals with all other aspects such as decasualisation and programming in the industry. We would like to see a rolling programme to give continuity of employment. The Secretary of State does not care about that. He does not believe in that system.

Mr. Parry: My hon. Friend raised the question of direct labour organisations. My hon. Friends are aware that the Liberal-controlled city council in Liverpool, with the support of the Tory Party, is introducing further spending cuts which


threaten more than 600 workers in the direct labour organisation. That means also the virtual non-building of council houses in Liverpool, which has a long waiting list. In addition, Liverpool probably has the highest level of unemployment in Britain.

Mr. Heffer: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. He made a valuable and important point about the direct labour organisation in Liverpool.
I wish to quote from "Building Brief 1", issued by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers :
What the Government must do in the future. If the lifeblood of the industry is not to be drained away by more short-term cuts at the expense of the long-term health of the economy, Government will have to reverse the effect of 15 years of misplaced economic opportunism during which the proportion of total public expenditure allocated to capital works has been allowed to fall from 23 per cent. in 1973/74 to only 13 per cent. in 1979/ 80.
In spite of Public Expenditure White Papers produced in 1979 by both Labour and Conservative Governments, recognising the importance of maintaining stability and capital spending on construction, and although the present Government has said that it believes public expenditure cuts should fall elsewhere in the economy, a stampede back to the bad old ways seems to be starting. Already, massive cuts of up to £1 billion in public housebuilding in 1980/81 will, if fully implemented, cause further disruption to an industry on whose performance the nation depends.
I am not a supporter of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, but I agree with that statement. On that issue, the unions are in line with the employers in fighting for work both for the workers and for the industry. I passionately believe in the construction industry. If the Government continue in the way that they are going, with the dismissive attitude adopted by the Secretary of State, the industry will head for disaster. If the Government continue in that way, there will be no industry left.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Politically I differ fundamentally from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and no doubt I shall always do so. None the less, I respect him, and share his anxiety. I hope that in my speech I shall echo both the seriousness of his approach to the subject and his obvious sincerity, which impressed us all.
The title of the debate on the Order Paper is the "Construction Industry". I shall not concentrate on so narrow a subject. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to imply, it would be better if we were to debate the whole subject of public capital investment rather than a single industry whose health and prosperity is crucially dependent upon its building level. I believe that both the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Member for Walton thought that it would be better to widen the debate.
I can put my point in a few sentences. We all know that, comparatively speaking, our nation is in an economic decline. We are in the early stages of an economic recession. It is a most serious matter, which grows worse weekly and monthly. I do not believe that it is inevitable. I am sure that it is within the capacity of the Government markedly to improve the position. Certain of the priorities that we have set for ourselves—some by design and some more by inadvertence or carelessness—are wrong and must be changed. I hope that they will be changed sooner rather than later.
We should be wiser to spend a little less effort trying to stop inflation and more time trying to increase production. I make no secret of my anxiety that we seem to be in some measure still perpetuating—in spite of the redoubtable efforts of my right hon. Friends—the errors of the past. I make no bones of my concern about the way in which Government policies are impinging so much upon the private sector, not least the manufacturing industry.
I believe that we have the capacity substantially to increase the wealth of the nation, and thus the happiness and welfare of the people. We have the capital and technology—and certainly the human resources, which we are at present tragically wasting on a growing scale—to achieve real material progress.
I should like to give just one example of the change that I seek—indeed, that I am determined upon. It is one example of the past and current failure to which I have already referred. It seems to me that we continually give too high a priority to consumption and too little to wealth creation. I am sure that the House will agree that in any modern society, directly or indirectly, Governments provide the


country's basic infrastructure requirements.
The two sides of the House may differ about the degree, but not about the fact. Roads, airports, communications of all kinds, the water supply, sewage disposal, the ports, atomic energy, and so on, are vital in today's context. But more needs to be said. Without their continual modernisation and expansion, industry and commerce cannot expand, the services which industry and commerce provide will be more costly and our nation will be deprived of the physical base on which it can and must thrive.
We all know that the Government exercise a close control on capital expenditure. No one knows that better than my right hon. Friend, with the huge responsibilities with which he and his colleagues grapple in their enormous Department, but experience indicates to me that the more carefully one examines the habits of government the clearer it becomes that the control over capital expenditure is much tighter than control over current expenditure. To some extent, my right hon. Friend touched on that point.
Let us examine the record to which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook fairly referred. Between 1972 and 1978—I deliberately choose a period to cover Governments of both political persuasions—general Government expenditure, in cash terms, rose by 80 per cent., but capital expenditure rose by only 37 per cent. In real terms, general expenditure rose by 15J per cent., whereas over those six years capital expenditure fell by 33 per cent. Wages and salaries rose by 85 per cent., and were never less than 53 per cent. of total current expenditure. In effect, that has been the continuous failure of Governments ever since the war. There have been too many people, too much administration, and not enough practical constructive work.
Let me make that point a little more clearly, if it is necessary. Between 1961 and 1968, employment in the public sector rose by l½ million. The number of those employed in health, education and social services doubled. I cannot believe that they were all doing jobs that were truly necessary, particularly when one bears in mind that in health the number of beds available to the public fell by no less than 14 per cent. over

the same period. That is why I strongly support the Prime Minister, following the announcement that she made the other day about the size of the Civil Service. I believe that that is only a beginning. That is why, in evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service the other day, I was delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking a keen personal interest in these matters within his own Department.
However, there are bad individual examples within the general picture. Between 1974–75 and 1980–81, public construction expenditure will have fallen by 21 per cent. The roads component will have fallen by 37 per cent., and 55,000 jobs will have been lost in the industry. Trunk road construction is now half the level that it was in 1975, and a mere one-third of the level that it was in 1970.
If those bald facts are not enough to shock, let us compare our situation with Europe. The United Kingdom undoubtedly under-invests seriously in its industrial infrastructure in comparison with some of our European friends. In Germany, 1·2 per cent. of GDP goes to road construction. In France, it is almost 1 per cent. But in the United Kingdom it is a mere 0·5 per cent. of a lower GDP.
I hope I carry the House with me when I say that the
provision of an adequate road network is a prime requirement of an industrial society".
Those are not my words ; they are words from the latest Government White Paper, which was published just a week ago. My complaint is that for too long, whatever the political complexion of the Government, there has been too much talk and too little action. We have been wafflers rather than doers. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Walton made the point that the trend is long established and that the record is simply appalling. Over many years, Ministers who have exhorted the private sector industries in particular to invest with phrases such as "Investment is the seed corn of Britain's prosperity in the future"—we have heard it a million times—have failed to practise what they have preached, and have thereby failed the nation.
If only public sector capital investment had matched the private sector, which has increased substantially over the period! I agree with what was said about the report in today's newspaper. I read it with great concern. Anyone who read it must have done so. What must be said is that the consequences of the failure and neglect over the years, which we must not perpetuate, is that large parts of the nation's vital capital structure are ageing and deteriorating, and are not being built or enlarged. The longer that work is delayed, the more expensive it will surely become.
As someone prominent in the industry remarked the other day, "So long as the Government fail to meet their obligations to the community in regard to public capital investment, large sectors of British industry, and especially the civil engineering and construction industries, will continue to shed their work forces, discard their technological skills and become uncompetitive in overseas markets, and when the upturn finally comes they will be unable to respond to it."
If as a result of this debate the House recognises that the balance between capital and current expenditure is wrong, that for far too long it has been tilted in favour of the latter, that that process must be reversed, that a little courage of the sort displayed by my right hon. Friend is needed, that a little clarity in establishing priorities, as well as good management, is required, and if we, who are the commanders in truth, insist upon it and monitor its progress, we can look forward to sustained economic growth—perhaps a period of sustained technological innovation—and, certainly, thereafter a sustained improvement in the standard of living for every sector of the community. The alternative is disaster. It is time for a change, and I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will measure up to the needs of the moment.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: This is a short debate, and I shall try to keep my speech as brief as possible because I know that many of my hon. Friends also wish to speak. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) for his appreciation of the problem and for the figures that he gave. As

he and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, it is to be hoped that the Minister takes cognisance of what has been said today, and that he takes this debate more seriously. I have listened to the Secretary of State treating the debate as some sort of Oxford union debate, instead of thinking about the thousands of people who are involved, not only in the industry, but who are involved because of lack of housing, office space, and so on.
Labour Members are now receiving letters from firms and associations that must find it difficult and embarrassing to send briefs to Labour Members only a year after they voted a Conservative Government into office. They must wonder what on earth they did, and why they did not read the small print in the Tory Party manifesto. I received a letter today dated 11 June—that is not a bad advertisement for the Post Office—from the chairman of the Royal Institute of British Architects, in which he said :
So great is my concern with what is happening to the industry that I would ask if you could make a special effort to attend to this debate and, if given the opportunity, raise some of the critical issues which I have noted on the enclosed addendum.
Associations such as the Royal Institute of British Architects must find it difficult to write such letters appealing for help. They used to have direct access to Ministers. I have said previously that councils have written to Labour Members saying that they do not now have access to Ministers. The Government should take note of that.
Associations such as the RIBA send lists of matters that are worrying them. They complain about investment within the industry. They complain about the Royal Commission's report which states that about 10 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure is inadequate to prevent deterioration of existing buildings, and they point out that that is to be cut to 5 per cent. They state that the consideration of special housing needs will be impossible if present "work in progress" is to be completed. They say that adequate arrangements will be impossible and that deterioration of the housing stock will be inevitable.
The cuts will fall on local firms and local councils. I do not think that the Minister will need a moratorium, because


council house building will cease, anyway, in a few years, because local authorities will have no money to spend on building. I shudder to think what will happen then, especially if waiting lists grow—as they will grow. I am not against the sale of council houses. I am against the Government dictating to councils about what they should or should not do with their housing stocks. They should leave it to the individual councils to decide. I would also be against my party dictating to local councils in such a manner.
The whole situation is becoming farcical. Rents are becoming chaotic and people are virtually being priced out of the market in council houses. My local council is getting into a mess in regard to rents. This has been caused basically by the circular sent to local councils.
If these cuts are made, the direct labour forces in areas such as these will find themselves on the dole and having to be kept by another Government Department. This will hit local firms as well. A year ago many of these firms were possibly the only places in which I could find Tory posters on their little wooden sheds. I suspect that at the next election—I do not say this with glee—there will not be as many Tory posters on as many wooden sheds. Already local firms are feeling the pinch. There will not be as many firms in my constituency with premises on which to stick such posters.
The same people are talking to me now, in the quiet of the evening, wondering where they went wrong and why they backed the present Government. However, they have done it, and the writing is on the wall for them.
The managing director of a firm of nationally known contractors has said :
Unless the decline in the building industry is halted, even firms such as ours "—
this emphasises the point made by the right hon. Member for Taunton—
will be unable to retain that nucleus of skilled craftsmen which is the very basis of the industry.
The Government amendment states :
this House…supports the Government in its policies to provide a sound basis for the prosperity of the construction industry.
My fear is that by the time that a sound basis is reached, there will be no construction industry left. The Government

will have to examine this matter very seriously.
The Minister ought to consider seriously the regional aspect and not look at just London and the London area. From the figures being bandied about, some of the regions have been hit much more than anywhere else. The Government must consider the local effects. In the Midlands and the South-East the value of new work has decreased by 6·6 per cent. I think that that is more than the national average. The value of work at the production drawing stage has decreased by 7·5 per cent., compared with 2·5 per cent. over the whole country. There is a regional problem as well.
The Minister ought to take cognisance of the fact that the abolition of regional joint committees precludes any liaison between the regions and the Development of the Environment. The Government ought to concern themselves more with regional problems and ought to open up the Department to regional bodies.
I promised to be as quick and as concise as possible. In conclusion, therefore, I believe that the Minister and the Department ought to take cognisance of what is being said this evening. That is being said not only on the Opposition Benches but by Conservative Members as well. If the Government are not very worthy in deed, they will have no construction industry to look after, and the moratorium on local authority construction work about which they are talking will not be necessary because they will find it impossible to carry on anyway.

Mr. John Ward: I declare an interest as a director of a construction company.
The needs of the industry are precisely those of the rest of the country. We must control inflation. We have to live within our means. We have to improve efficiency and to earn any wage increases. The construction industry cannot simply ask to be exempted from the problems of the country as a whole.
We know that the industry supplies one-eighth of this country's productivity. It employs 2½ million people, and its record since the war consists of about 10 million new homes, perhaps 20,000 miles of new roads, together with hospitals, schools, power stations and so on.


However, because the industry has always been used by Governments of both major parties as a regulator in times of economic difficulty, it is beginning to learn—perhaps is has learnt—to bounce back.
I shall make my remarks under two headings. The first concerns the 70,000 firms which employ fewer than 25 people, and the 5,000 firms which employ fewer than 114 people. Their problems are different from those of the big international companies. Although they have a common need—continuity of work at the right price—a small firm's ability to react to a given situation is often dictated by size. The small to medium-sized building firm is affected by high interest rates. Contracts can take months or years and the builder is often left to finance part of the contract until completion.
At present public contracts take inflation into account only if they last for more than 12 months. It would be a great help to smaller builders if that period could be reduced to six months. One cannot expect the estimating team of a small builder to be able to predict inflation for the coming year. We shall all welcome the day when interest rates come down. In the Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a certain amount of help to small businesses. The new workshop scheme, the raising of the VAT threshold and the simplification of the 714 certificate scheme will all help small builders.
Although larger firms are beset by many of the problems that affect their smaller brethren, they can sometimes respond to those problems with considerable success. They have concentrated on the development of new markets, and have invested heavily in research and development. They have aimed for more intensive utilisation of plant and resources. They have developed new skills overseas and brought back some of those methods to the United Kingdom. They have improved their design and management techniques. Some firms have entered new areas of construction such as property development, plant and equipment hire, and material supplies. Some have gone into the energy sector. Many companies have dramatically increased their overseas workload.
Hon. Members may have seen the exhibition that the Association of Consult

ing Engineers has mounted in the Upper Waiting Hall. They will have seen that consulting engineers have increased their workload from £23 million in 1968 to £375 million in 1978. That represents a return in overseas earnings of over £20,000 per annum for every technical member of staff. During the same period, contractors increased their earnings from £578 million to £5,423 million.
Some of our largest contractors have opened offices in places such as Houston, Texas and Calgary. Both of those towns are in the centre of oil development areas. Other contractors are opening and building estates in places such as California and Australia. One company has turned a section of swamp in Florida into a thriving community, with some of the best amenities in the State. One of the most surprising developments is that British contractors have built on 38 years' experience of open-cast coal mining in this country and are now mining coal in East Kentucky and West Virginia, in competition with Americans.
Other companies are opening up the Third world with jute mills and spinning mills from Vietnam to Bolivia, and from West Africa to Russia. The construction industry often acts as a pioneer for other exporters. The development of the construction industry in the Middle East—which has given a lot of work to designers and construction men—is there for the record. I am reminded of the old suq in Bahrain. It was a pretty insanitary place. However, it has been replaced with a building the size of five football pitches by a British contractor. The mass transit passenger system in Hong Kong is another product of British engineering design. There is no corner of the world that has not been touched by the construction industry seeking markets for its goods. I hope that the House will agree that such enterprise deserves support at home.
Many people will be unaware of the work of the construction industry in oil and gas. Many of the production platforms are built by the construction industry. Many contracting firms are engaged in drilling and offshire servicing of structures. Many of the less glamorous parts of the servicing of oil rigs are carried out by people who previously worked onshore in the construction industry.
There is much of which the industry can be proud, and I believe that it will


be as resilient as it has been in the past. It ill becomes the Opposition to criticise this Government and their policies for the construction industry. During the previous Labour Government's term of office they dealt the industry one savage blow after another. They were half-hearted, to say the least, in their attempts to control the excesses of certain direct labour organisations. We attempted, as did the previous Government, to make those organisations more accountable to the ratepayers. The inefficiencies of certain direct labour organisations are on the record.
Much of the waste that direct labour departments have been able to conceal in the past will be open to public scrutiny once the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill becomes law. These departments need to tender in competition, with true overheads included in their costs. That would go some way towards preventing the scandulous waste of public money.
I am sure that all the past abuses mean that we still need to be vigilant. For example, there is that hotbed of democracy in South Yorkshire where a £1·5 million road contract has just been placed with the authority's direct labour organisation without seeking tenders from the private sector. The council went through the process of advertising as required under the EEC directive for public works contracts. But anyone who was foolish enough to try to obtain the documents was told that the contract had already been let.
Again in Glasgow, which is not exactly noted for the efficiency of its direct labour organisation, the council proposed to place a contract for £300,000 with its direct labour organisation, although its price was 8½ per cent. higher than a tender from the private sector. I am glad to say that the Scottish Development Council scotched that one. In general the output from the private sector is 15 to 20 per cent. above that of any direct labour organisation.
Perhaps my biggest criticism of the Labour Party's attitude to the construction industry can be found by reading the booklet about which we have heard much tonight. It was published when naked greed got the better of Labour's political expediency and the party revealed its plans for nationalising the construction industry.

During the election Labour candidates went around, waffled and hedged their bets. They suddenly realised that there were 2½ million votes on the line.

Mr. Heffer: Quote the document.

Mr. Ward: I have done even better than that. I have done the hon. Member the courtesy of reading the booklet from cover to cover and I am disgusted by what I read. The industry's response was forceful and typical. An organisation called CABIN was formed to fight off that State grab. In the process the organisation exposed the true merits of the then Labour Government. [Interruption.]—It is all right for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to make loud noises. We have heard a lot about his care for the construction industry. I care as deeply as he does, but the differenc is that I have been working with the men in the industry on the ground for the past 25 years. We all know that the construction industry is going through a difficult period, but so is the rest of the country. We all know that both the country and the construction industry need stability and prosperity.
I referred earlier to the introduction of proper accounting procedures for direct labour organisations. I also referred to the new workshop scheme. The enterprise zones and the urban development corporations that were announced by the Government will give a new and exciting area of activity for the construction industry to work in. The repeal of the Community Land Act 1975 will do much to release land for the housebuilder in the private sector.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Rubbish.

Mr. Ward: I understand that the hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members do not wish the private sector to succeed. I am proud to say that I do and that it will. The simplification of the certificate 714 procedure will allow men to get on with their jobs and not worry about bureaucratic form filling. That will also be an improvement. My right hon. Friend's announcement of the simplification of planning procedures will be welcomed by everybody in the industry who cares for its future.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to give a little further


help. I support entirely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said about the need not to cut capital expenditure and to cut current expenditure. High current expenditure is another way of describing masses of people sitting in offices telling others what they should be doing.
The industry needs a stable and high workload. It needs continuing freedom from excessive bureaucracy. It needs lower interest rates. The construction industry, as the Labour Party found out to its cost, is a collection of individuals. Those individuals cannot be regimented and nor will they be. If the construction industry is to succeed, it needs the success of the Government's policies.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward)—I think that that is his constituency, but it may be Bahrein or the Middle East—attacked direct labour and defended the construction industry, especially the employers. I suggest that he reads the brief given to hon. Members by building industry employers. If he does, he will know the true views of the employers and not merely the views of a construction industry tycoon who happens to sit on the Government Benches and feels obliged to say things that will please his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Ward: I always understood the Labour Party to believe in promotion from the factory floor. My first job in the construction industry was that of a concrete labourer. I worked on every job on the site and I became a director. I feel that I have nothing of which I should be ashamed. I have done my work in the construction industry in Britain and overseas.

Mr. Roberts: Some of the worst and most difficult employers are those who have worked themselves up from the factory floor and who find it difficult to accept that other workers are not quite as able as themselves in certain circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that nothing was wrong with the construction industry. He seemed to be suggesting that the construction industry was in perfect health, that it was

thriving, and that there was no exploitation of lump labour. He said that when Labour Members advocated public ownership of the building industry, they were not told that there was no industry to take into public ownership apart from the large international firms. He spoke of small companies that hired plant and hired and fired labour as and when the workload demanded. He said that such firms were impossible to take into public ownership by their very nature and that there was nothing in that sector to nationalise.
That says a great deal about what is wrong with the industry. It explains how labour can still be exploited. It tells us why we have too few building apprentices and why national statistics indicate that thousands of building workers are unemployed when we have an economic recession, and that when we have a Government-created boom reputable companies are often unable to recruit the skilled tradesmen that they need.
The nation needs a stronger and better organised building industry. However, the industry is dependent upon government, both national and local, for its survival. It is perhaps more dependent on government than any other industry. It can survive only if it is ensured continuity of work, and that can be ensured only by the Government.
The industry needs continuity to enable it to plan for the future, to expand and to have the confidence to invest in essential apprenticeships. The Government's policies of cuts in public expenditure and deflation of the economy have denied the building industry the continuity that it needs.
One of the reasons, also, for the shortage of skilled craftsmen was the attempt by the building industry and, indeed, by local government and central Government, in the mid-1960s, to engage in industrialised building, particularly in housing. I remember at the age of 16, in my school lessons, being given a vision of houses produced in factories and slotted together on the site, reducing both costs and building times. That vision soon turned into a nightmare, as the deck access houses of the mid-1960s, which were expensive to build and maintain, were finally rejected by the families for whom they were intended.
Traditional craftsmen are needed more than ever now. Nothing has been produced that can beat the traditional low-rise, brick-built house. The building industry also has a responsibility towards Governments and the community, as well as the other way round—particularly towards local government. During the boom times, for example in the early 1970s, because more profitable business was available in the private sector, very few companies tendered for public sector house building projects. For instance, in the city of Manchester at that time we were able to maintain our house building programme only by virtue of our own direct labour department, which tendered and continued to tender, with the odd exception, on occasions, when Wimpey tendered as well, trying to maintain some continuity.
Companies came running back to the public sector when the bubble burst and they are now crying out for public sector work when there is deflation in the economy and not much work in the private sector.
1 hope that when we get the next Labour Government, and there is expenditure in the public sector and the economy starts to pick up again, the construction industry accepts its responsibility to the public sector and local government.
The industry also often turns its back on more difficult and more labour-intensive repair and improvement work, which is essential in improvement areas and to older housing in our inner city areas. A scheme to modernise a few hundred purpose-built council homes that are standardised is easy meat, but trying to let a contract for about 100 houses, acquired in the private sector, that are pepper potted about is not so easy, because even the big builders will not tackle that job. Unless the building industry can face the task of organising this kind of work effectively, and at not too exorbitant a cost, the return of the bulldozer is inevitable. It is interesting to note that few Conservative councils hive off to the private sector the maintenance and repair work that is done by direct labour departments. They hive off the more profitable capital construction and leave the local authority direct labour department with the more difficult and much less profitable loss leader.
Many myths exist throughout the building industry. One, which has been propounded tonight by Government supporters, is that acres and acres of building land are being hoarded by local authorities—land that they are not using but that if released would allow the building industry to build houses for sale. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Perhaps in Liverpool there is derelict land—that in the ownership of the local authority—land that should have been built on but has not been built on because there is no council house building programme, owing to the political stalemate in that city.
In most parts of the country—in the city of Manchester, for example—local authorities are constantly seeking to acquire more housing land in order to maintain a municipal house building programme. Lack of land inhibits that programme. The truth is that the private developers have themselves failed to buy land in the inner city. Land has been available, but they have not bought it. The big private builders are still insisting on subsidised land if they are to risk building in inner cities.
Another myth is that council housing is not built as attractively as speculative housing because of standardisation. We often hear the words "They all look the same". But so does every Wimpey and Barra" home. The truth is that in either sector houses at a price that ordinary people can afford can be produced only by standardisation. The challenge to builders, architects and planners is to produce interest and variety on an estate where standardised components and house types are necessary. The major difference between low-rise council housing and a speculative estate for owner-occupation is density. The public sector has had to build to a much higher density because of absurd yardsticks related to densities. Lower-density council housing in inner areas would produce estates even more attractive than the average speculative estate.
I am also against the Government's decision to abolish Parker Morris standards. If anything, they need improving on. A house without full central heating or kitchen space for a deep-freeze will be unnacceptable in the not too distant


future.—[Interruption.] Conservative Members murmur. I bet that they have deep-freezes.
People's expectations will continue to rise. That is to be welcomed. If they did not, we should still be living in caves. The Government claim that we have broken the back of the nation's housing crisis—a statement with which I do not agree. It is ironic that they advocate reductions in house building standards, when this is the time to increase and not reduce standards.
Builders should be practical. They have a lot to offer the nation. Architects and planners often have flights of fancy. The practical advice of builders should be available to all policy makers deciding on schemes for houses, schools, offices or factories. Every local council committee should have access to that advice. That is a further reason why direct labour departments should be expanded and developed.

9 pm

Mr. Sydney Chapman: We are all concerned about the future of the construction industry, which is the greatest industry in the country, whether measured by output or manpower. We have had speeches of passion and conviction. I want to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who has a deep interest in the industry. I have only one word of criticism. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of a doctrinaire attitude to certain matters in the industry. We feel that the Labour Party's policy is in some respects doctrinaire. It must seem a pity to people outside the House that we do not have a more bi-partisan policy to try to rid our country of unsatisfactory building conditions, whether in the commercial or residential sector.
By any yardstick it is an insecure and high-risk industry. Statistics have been bandied around about the levels of unemployment. The industry's level of unemployment has for many years been three to four times the national average. It fluctuates widely. In 1973, fewer than 100,000 construction workers were registered as unemployed. Within three years the figure rose to over 200,000. Today it has again almost reached that figure. A further problem is the traditionally high

number of bankruptcies because of the lack of liquidity. These problems are inherent in the industry and demand special consideration.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke eloquently of the fall in the industry's output since 1979. However, a massive fall has taken place since 1973 under successive Governments. We now regard 1973 as a somewhat golden year. Due to inflation the value of the industry's output has risen consistently. At the start of the 1970s the historic figure showed that output was about £5 billion. Last year it was an estimated £19 billion. However, those figures conceal a modest rise until 1973, and sharp declines, sometimes fluctuating, in the past six years.
The hon. Member for Walton points out that, roughly speaking, the industry's output is divided equally between the public and private sectors. There is no doubt that the most significant factor that will affect work in the private sector is the level of interest rates. Naturally we all hope that they will come down, but they are not the only factor. I pay tribute to the Government for taking action in the fiscal sense on development land tax, which is now on a fair basis and which I hope will receive bi-partisan support, and on industrial building allowances, help for small firms, the new workshop scheme, and so on.
I also welcome the Government's actions and intentions, which I believe to be sincere, to try to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy through the elimination of office development permits, which I believe were unnecessary in the light of our development control system, the partial, if not total, removal of industrial development certificates, and speedier planning decisions and appeals.
The most difficult objective to achieve will be the simplification of building regulations, whch are far too complex and comprehensive and have almost become self-defeating. I believe that they can be unified throughout the country and simplified without compromising proper safety factors and conditions.
The debate is particularly concerned with the public sector. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that his local architects had written to him. I declare an interest as a non-practising architect. For years the hon.


Member for Walton and I have been telling the industry that it should use the political clout which it has in theory but which it never seems to exercise in practice. I have been advising architects to write to their local Members to let them know of the problems that they are facing.
The Government are the industry's largest client, and because of the special difficulties of the industry it is not too much to ask the Government to try to guarantee a reasonable minimum and smooth level of work so that it can plan its long-term programmes. After all, it is, by its very nature, a long-term investment industry.
I appreciate why the Government thought it prudent in the public expenditure White Paper to publish public sector construction industry figures for next year only and not up to 1983–84, but I hope that they will commit themselves in the next White Paper, in line with the precedent set by the recent roads White Paper. We shall need new sewers, buildings, including prisons, roads and other infrastructure if we are to bring about more speedily the economic regeneration of this country.
The tragedy of the 1970s, which has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides, and particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), is that successive Governments, faced with the need to rein in public expenditure, have found it easier to chop or delay capital expenditure programmes rather than current programmes.
To take an extreme, but a correct, example, which politician would dare to say to his electorate that it was more important to build a road to the ports than to increase the retirement pension? Any politician who said that on the hustings would probably lose his deposit, let alone his seat. But any Government must have courage.
It is always easier to temporise and stress the importance of the old-age pension or the myriad of benefits and allowances which, once given, are expected, as a right, to be updated, taking inflation into account. Until a sufficient number of politicians stand up and proclaim that the infrastructure must also be provided, I do not believe that we are facing honestly what the construction industry has had to suffer. I hope that this does

not sound too party political. We can criticise all Governments. Until we face the fact that the capital expenditure programme is a sound investment programme and should not be the first to suffer when we have to rein back on public expenditure, we shall not begin to tackle the deep-rooted problems that face the greatest industry in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before calling the next hon. Member, I remind the House that half an hour remains until the Front Bench speakers hope to reply. Six hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that hon. Members will use their arithmetic to help their colleagues.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Government's amendment is irrelevant to the present difficult situation facing the construction industry. The same description could be applied to the Tweedledee and Tweedledum contribution of the Secretary of State. This great industry is in a parlous condition. I know this only too well from my own trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, which has a huge membership in the building and construction industry. If I had not been aware of that fact through my own trade union, I was certainly made aware of it by local leaders of the industry in South Wales.
Many of the difficulties are the direct result of the dogma of the Government. Reference has been made several times to the article in the Financial Times this morning. There is every indication that the article was based on a Treasury leak. The Secretary of State should not have glossed over the matter as he did. The article sets out an alarming position. According to the article, a moratorium could face the industry in the not-too-distant future and could well result in the Secretary of State being overruled.
It appears that the Government regard public expenditure as essentially evil. I know from my own experience in Wales that the region requires public expenditure now like it has never required it before. Nationally, we have the absurd position of over 200,000 construction workers on the dole, when they should be doing useful work. Interest rates are at a phohibitive level. The Government's action in cutting public expenditure, plus


the high level of interest rates, means that mobility in housing has been virtually halted.
A council tenant thinking of taking out a mortgage on a semi-detached property looks at the interest rates and is put off. In the same way, a person living in a semi-detached property, who may be thinking of moving to a detached house, is also put off. Our council house waiting lists are getting longer. Young couples are suffering. They have to live with in-laws, with all the marital stress that is involved.
This overall gloomy picture is borne out by the forecasts this month of the joint forecasting committee of the building and civil engineering EDCs. Reduc-forecast until 1982. Many schools are relics of a bygone age. Others are conglomerations of nissen huts. Many of our hospitals are nothing more than Victorian workhouses. Their facilities are dreadfully inadequate and waiting lists are soaring.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) referred to the White Paper on roads. It contains proposals for shelving or holding up no less than £750 million worth of road schemes, yet our roads are deteriorating because of lack of maintenance. New roads are required to promote industrial efficiency. Bypasses are needed not only to preserve many of our ancient buildings but for safety. Heavy lorries carry chemicals. An incident in Wales this week could have led to a disaster. Such vehicles should be taken out of our towns. Bypasses are necessary because, without them, one day there will be a major tragedy.
Perhaps the greatest crisis of all faces our sewerage services. The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors gave a clear warning in February to the parliamentary Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure. It said that millions of pounds had to be spent on sewerage services. Mr. George Henderson of the building trades section of the Transport and General Workers Union estimates that about £400 million a year needs to be spent over 20 years to bring our sewerage services up to an adequate standard.
An article in The Times of 16 November by Peter Hennessy states :

Sewage in the streets is a politician's nightmare. It is the ultimate sign that Government authority has broken down.
A few weeks ago that is what happened just outside Blackburn. The old sewerage system literally gave out. There were rats and excreta in the streets. If such warnings are not heeded we shall be turned into an effluent society.
Over 200,000 construction workers are in the dole queue. The joint forecasting committee of the building and civil engineering EDCs, on page 4 of its document, states :
No significant constraints are likely to arise from shortage of labour or materials.
The situation is a classic one of capitalism. The materials are available, yet the work people languish in the dole queue. There is no movement, yet essential work is waiting to be done. It is time that the Government realised the folly of their economic policies. There is a need to change course, and that need is urgent.

Mr. Den Dover: I declare an interest as the parliamentary consultant for the firm of George Wimpey.
During the debate we have heard of the various aspects of the construction industry. We must not simply describe the activity of the industry as housing or describe it merely as the building industry. It is a wide-ranging industry which is involved in construction overseas and at home. Design features and mechanical, heating, ventilating and plumbing functions are all part of the industry.
The industry is flexible and versatile. If a firm is large it can turn its hand to other activities where there is a growth area. If a firm is small it can change, perhaps, from new building work to modernisation and rehabilitation. Therein lies the strength of the industry and that is why I do not agree with the Opposition motion but support the Government amendment.
It is extremely important that the House should realise that the industry is still behind the Government. I am in touch with many people in the industry who conducted a marvellous campaign against nationalisation. They even now regard the Government as their Government. They do not see the Government


as having destroyed their livelihood or as having got rid of their workload.
Today Lord Scanlon opened a huge lorry production plant in my constituency. It cost £32 million and is manufacturing dozens of lorries a week. Eventually it produce over 400 lorries a week. Lord Scanlon said that we should realise that if we want schools, hospitals and roads we must earn them. He pointed out that we must continue manufacturing and establish such enterprises as the lorry plant that he opened in Leyland.
That is where the future of the construction industry lies. Its future does not lie in building unwanted, unnecessary council houses. We have seen the folly of those ways. What we need is private investment, housing for sale and manufacturing facilities. Perhaps in that regard the Government should bring down interest rates sooner rather than later. That would ensure the recovery of the country more quickly.
However, the industry does not expect miracles overnight. It is in for a tricky period and it was not helped by the threat of nationalisation by the previous Government. Neither was it helped by vast increases in central and local government manning levels and by the creation of such bodies as the road construction units which, I am delighted to say are to be wound up. The industry does not want those things.
The construction industry is an industry of private enterprise. It realises that there is much work to be done in order to put this country back on its feet and is ready and waiting in the wings.
In the meantime the industry is reorientating itself and getting ready for the day when expansion takes place. The industry realises that it is necessary to cut public expenditure good and hard now ready for the day of recovery.

Mrs. Renée Short: I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) extraordinary. The building industry is concerned about the cuts in public expenditure. As one of the hon. Gentlemen's hon. Friends pointed out, it relies considerably on expenditure in the public sector for the major jobs that it undertakes.
There are many facets to this problem and, in spite of the many contacts that have been made by sections of the industry abroad, the British construction industry appears to be lagging well behind its Continental competitors.
The need for a technology-based industry with high standards of design for the creation of exciting architecture seems not to be understood by many British firms—not all of them—I am sorry to say. The manufacture of many components seems to be, all too often, much less exciting and imaginative than those produced by our foreign rivals. I am concerned about that because it affects the export potential of British manufacturers which I shall speak about in a few moments. Many of our British firms would do well to emulate some of their foreign counterparts which are able to compete in this country with great success.
The Government's shocking attitude to the industry is well known, and Conservative Members have commented on that in powerful speeches. The Government are so besotted with monetarist ideas and the overwhelming commitment to save money in certain areas—in some areas Government expenditure has been allowed to increase—that fewer houses are being built and fewer old houses are being modernised. The need for local authority houses is far from being satisfied, with thousands of applicants on many local authority waiting lists.
The onus is placed on local authorities to cut back public expenditure, but the real cuts are falling on public sector capital spending which will hit the construction industry very badly. It looks as though within two or three years no local authority houses will be built. Rents are going through the roof nevertheless. Road programmes are being cut back. As the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) pointed out, expenditure in that sector is 37 per cent. down on last year. The effect will be even more serious on the construction industry generally with more bankruptcies, more unemployment and, sadly, the disbandment of more and more design teams. These teams take a long time to get together and keep in effective employment. Instead of the long-term planning for capital projects that is needed, whenever there is a crisis


building projects are slashed and the same dreary cycle persists.
I am very concerned about the low levels of exports by the building materials industry and the building industry generally. The expansion in the supply to the EEC of British services and building materials, of components, of the knowledge of new methods of producing building materials—for example, aerated concrete—has been considerably hampered by the use by EEC countries of their official technical approvals agencies to restrict imports from Britain of materials and know-how.
In Germany and France a foreign firm wishing to export a new material, component or method of construction must first obtain approval from an official approvals agency. It is impossible to export to those countries without that. The approval is based on tests carried out in the importing country's testing laboratories. That can take up to two years and sometimes longer. Without that approval the goods cannot be accepted on site.
Firms wanting to export have to pay at least £20,000 in each case, and perhaps much more. The delay and expense means that in many cases both the British firm and its German importer give up in desperation. This is a great disadvantage to our companies which lose many trade opportunities in this way. To counteract that it has been proposed that the necessary technical approval tests should be carried out in this country in compliance with the standards and technical requirements of the country to which the goods are to be exported. If we were to export to Germany, therefore, we would carry out tests to satisfy the German importers.
Unfortunately, the British negotiators seeking to establish this system were at a considerable disadvantage because no similar approvals system exists here. There is, however, the Agrément Board which comes within the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The board is not all that powerful, but it could be made more so if it were to be given the statutory powers that it needs. It is the only organisation which could deal on behalf of British firms. Successive Governments have treated it in a most niggardly, unrealistic way. It has never

been adequately funded. My right hon. Friend who was the Secretary of State in the last Government did very little to help it.
British negotiators are in a weak position when attempting to negotiate bilateral agreements which involve loss of business by German and French testing organisations. A proper system of technical approvals could provide some quid pro quo and if such organisations became difficult it would be easy to exclude their exports to Britain. If we are seriously concerned about imports in any sphere of industry, that is the way to deal with it.
Products should be tested for strength, stability and design, or whatever criteria are laid down. That would control the quality of goods being brought into Britain. It would not be a financial burden because the would-be importer would have to pay for the cost of testing. It would give us some control over imports. Foreign competitors could not complain because they are operating precisely the same control over British imports.
I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that proposal because it could give a great fillip to the manufacturers of British components and exporters of British know-how who are trying hard to export their goods and services. My proposal should give some fillip to that area of the construction industry.

Mr. David Alton: I shall try to be brief, because I understand that another hon. Member wishes to speak. I wish to point out some of the inconsistencies between the debate today and a debate held in 1977. Although I was not a Member of Parliament at that time, I took the trouble to read the speeches made in that debate. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is probably one of the few who can claim to be consistent, comparing his speech today with his speech in 1977. I congratulate him on his honesty.
The issue is a political football that is kicked around from Government to Government. Each time there is a change of Government, the arguments change from side to side. It is ironic that the


hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), when his party was in opposition, said :
Two industries in this country have been used as economic regulators for the past 25 years—the construction industry and the motor industry.
Also in that debate, he said :
Of all the many groups, associations and industries which have suffered under the last three years of Socialism, none has been clobbered more than the building and construction industry and its associated professions.
Quoting the President of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, he said :
The building and construction industry is in a recession of the worst magnitude in living memory…the building industry is angry and embittered."—[Official Report, 2 May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 113–6.]
I realise that it is impossible for a Government automatically to offer economic cure-alls and automatically to turn round the policies of the past. The Government have done little since they took office to ease the problems in the construction industry. Crude dilemmas have been given to local authorities. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) said that in Liverpool the local authority had to choose between its direct works department and jobs in the private sector of the construction industry. On the basis that 200 more jobs could be provided in the private sector, it decided to opt for that instead of the direct works department. That decision was not taken easily, and it was not a decision that it wished to take. No doubt that is part of the discretion being given to local authorities to which the Secretary of State referred earlier.
Such crude choices have led to housing associations cutting back their programmes. I shall quote one figure that eloquently demonstrates the way in which those at the sharp end of the housing queues receive the worst treatment as a result of the cuts. In the first quarter of this year, housing associations will provide a total of only 72 homes for the disabled or invalids. During last year they provided about 1,400. That demonstrates the way in which housing is being bitten into, and how those at the sharp end are receiving a poor deal.
Housing expenditure this year will fall from £5.372 million by a total of 48 per cent. until 1984. It means that fewer

homes will be built, that private house building will slump, that homelessness will steadily increase, that lettings will decrease, and that in many parts of the country there will be no more rehousing from waiting lists. Many housing revenue accounts will be driven into the red, and unemployment among construction workers and architects will undoubtedly reach record levels, as hon. Members have already said.
Confronted with that, we are faced with a motion which talks about unemployment in the construction industry rising to more than 200,000. But that is not the case at present. It is deplorably high—189,000 people are out of work in that industry. However, there have been occasions in the past when more than 200,000 have been unemployed in the construction industry—there were 205,000 in February 1979 and 221,000 in February 1978. Therefore, it is difficult for Liberal Members to go along with the crocodile tears that seem to be cried in the motion.
I must also tell Conservative Members that it is difficult to accept that Liberals should have some sort of blind commitment to an economic policy—which is all that the Government amendment offers—which has given us inflation raging at more than 20 per cent., the minimum lending rate running at 17 per cent. and a mortgage rate of 15 per cent. All of them in their own way ensure that people either cannot afford to buy homes or that small businesses go bankrupt—businesses such as Loughton Construction, in Liverpool, which went bankrupt a few weeks ago, leaving half-completed council homes empty as a result. Raging inflation has also led to many firms, be they big or small, being faced with the prospect of closing down, thus putting more people on the dole queue.
I remind the Secretary of State of what I said to him on Third Reading of the Housing Bill. I referred to his firm. He has managed to turn it into a profitable enterprise, and all credit to him for doing so. That firm made a profit of £3·7 million in 1978. One-third of that was ploughed back into the business and only £230,000 was given to the shareholders.
The right hon. Gentleman should adopt the same sort of maxims in public housing. He should put more money back into public housing by providing


improvement grants and new house building grants, and by giving construction workers the chance to participate in their industry.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have outlived my welcome.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) should not be surprised at the parlous state of this industry, when it is recognised that the country has faced seven years of stagnation, and when we all know that this industry is highly dependent on public expenditure.
Conservative Members who have congratulated the Government on their progress in the last year have been right to do so, because despite the difficult situation, there has been real progress. There has been progress on planning delays, and the announcement this evening by the Secretary of State should be greatly welcomed. There has been progress in getting rid of Parker Morris, and crocodile tears are indeed the just reward of Parker Morris. There has also been progress in simplifying building controls and the whittling out of publicly-held assets. At last there has been some realism in public sector housing. There has also been an attack on the houses of direct labour. Not least, there has been the releasing of council tenants from the bondage of council housing as a way of life, and they have now been given the opportunity to buy their own homes.
It is particularly apt that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) is to sum up the debate for the Opposition. It was he who, when Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in 1974–75, laid down the foundations for the biggest crash that this industry has ever seen. He was part of the team that master-minded the Community Land Act—that wonderful strategy that was designed to bring forward land for development, but which produced only 153 acres in its first two years of existence. It was he who helped his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to write "Building Britain's Future ", which represented the virtual nationalisation of the building industry and—the hon. Gentleman always forgets to say this—the building material producers as well. That is why they rose up in revolt.
It was the right hon. Gentleman who, in the Queen's Speech of 1977–78, helped to mastermind the call for further

direct labour operations. It was only because of the Lib-Lab pact that it collapsed. It is right, therefore, that we should hear the offerings of the Opposition for this great industry. It is little wonder that my hon. Friends who work in this industry and who have supported it for so many years should say that the industry, even in these difficult times, is very much beind the present Government, as I am, too.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Secretary of State told the House tonight, that he will not make a statement tomorrow announcing a moratorium on council house building. However, it is alleged that he will hold a press conference tomorrow to make certain important announcements. I should like to make it clear that if the Secretary of State is to make such a statement, we expect it to be made in the House, to Parliament, and not to a press conference outside the House, where the Opposition do not have the right to question it. We shall insist on a statement in the House if the Secretary of State holds such a press conference tomorrow.
This debate coincides with an anniversary. It is exactly a year ago today that the minimum lending rate was raised to 14 per cent. We all know that a 14 per cent. minimum lending rate holds a special place in the Prime Minister's heart. She proclaimed to the House last year that
an increase in interest rates to 14 per cent. is a potential disaster for home buyers…it is the home buyer and the small business who are having to pay the price for the Government's economic failure."—[Official Report, 8 February 1979, Vol. 962, c. 550.]
Not long after that minimum lending rate went up to 17 per cent., and it has remained at that figure for seven months. The potential disaster about which the Prime Minister spoke, has now become an actual disaster, and the causes of it are clear. They are an intolerably high minimum lending rate, coupled with the Government's spending cuts. Day by day evidence piles up of the ruin that is being caused by these two blunt instruments. The number of mortgages is falling precipitously. This year they are likely to drop to their lowest level since the Conservative Party was last in office. The number of


new council house starts is plunging so fast that the Secretary of State is scared to offer any estimate.
Last year, in his first flush of office, the Secretary of State derided the Labour Government. He claimed
that they had managed to reduce the entire new house building programme to the levels last seen in Britain 30 years ago.
If that was true then, it is true no longer. Under the Secretary of State's supervission, the house building programme is now at its lowest for nearly 40 years. It may get worse, because tonight the Secretary of State, in a remarkable and disturbing statement, significantly and ominously shrank from denying that the Government might impose a freeze on all council house building.
It is not only house building that is suffering. The National Economic Development Office last week issued a devastating series of forecasts covering the entire construction industry. It said that repairs and improvements would fall, that there would be less road building and fewer new schools, that water programmes would be reduced, and that fewer new factories would be built.
Those grim warnings are confirmed by the Government Front Bench. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have a powerful characteristic in common—in addition, of course, to their loathing of each other and their apparent patronage of the same hairdresser, both privileges regrettably denied to myself. They both have an uncontrollable tendency to blurt out the awkward truth in unguarded moments.
Last week the Secretary of State admitted to the House that far fewer public sector houses are being built. Speaking about housing to the Select Committee on the Environment, he confessed that the public and private sectors are collapsing. He was as frank on the subject of roads. He said that fewer roads are being designed. Only a week ago the Prime Minister coyly amplified that confession when she said that
the road programme has been reduced. There is not much scope for it being reduced further."—[Official Report, 5 June 1980, Vol. 985. c. 1674.]
The Secretary of State claims that these trends began under the Labour Government

and that he is simply continuing them. It must be said that he has an unfortunate addiction to treating facts that do not suit his case as inconveniences, to be manipulated until they fit his rewriting of the truth. The Secretary of State is the Demon Barber of Marsham Street. He treats statistics in the way that Sweeney Todd treated his customers. First he slits their throats and then he cooks them. Nowhere is this culinary butchery more blatant than in his version of the record on house building. Again and again, the Secretary of State claims that, under Labour, public sector house building fell year by year and that he is only continuing what we began. He was at it again last week, when he said
The number of public sector houses has been reduced every year for the last four years.
Let us examine how the Secretary of State bakes this unsavoury meat pie. First, he starts with an untruth, because in the period that he cites, in 1976, public sector housing starts rose above those in 1975, just as in 1975 they rose above those in 1974.
Secondly, the Secretary of State compounds this untruth by deliberately starting his chosen period with a year when housing starts were at their highest for nearly a decade, directly because of the incoming Labour Government's decision to increase the house building programme. The Secretary of State is well aware of this because he has generously accused me of responsibility for it when I was at the Department of the Environment—although he calls it irresponsibility. The devastating charge that he made about me was that I was encouraging local authorities dramatically to increase their housing programmes. Guilty, m'Lud.
It is certainly true that there was a serious decline from the high level of starts in the early years of the previous Labour Government—a decline for which we on the Opposition Benches do not offer excuses. But the fact is that even the worst Labour year was better than the level of public sector building starts that we inherited from the previous Tory Government. It is the Secretary of State who bears a unique responsibility for destroying the house building programme. When he took office, he said :
our economic policies in general will create conditions in which it will be possible for


more and better-quality homes to be provided ".—[Official Report, 17 May 1979 ; Vol. 967, c. 407].
In little over a year he has cynically betrayed that promise.
Not only is the Secretary of State attacking those who depend on the construction industry's products ; he is attacking those who depend on it for their livelihood. Nowhere is this attack more vicious than in his assault on the direct labour organisations of local authorities. Any industry depends on new blood coming in to revitalise it. It is the DLOs that are providing the construction industry with its trainees. [Interruption.] DLOs have only 23 per cent. of the building workers in the industry, but they provide 46 per cent. of the trainees. The Secretary of State's attack on the DLOs is an attack on the future of the industry, an industry which has the country's largest output—£19 billion ; one-eighth of the gross national product.
One cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy construction industry. Yet the present Government are sapping the industry's strength away. There is a decline of more than 10 per cent. in capital expenditure on construction work for this year, compared with the last full year of the Labour Government. The decline will be even steeper if one group of organisations were not planning dramatic increases in their building programmes. Those organisations are the nationalised industries—electricity, railways, gas, coal, and British Leyland.
It is an ironic fact that the Tory Government are relying on the nationalised industries, which they hate so much, to rescue the construction industry from the worst consequences of Tory policy. But even this rescue plan has a snag, because, as the National Federation of Building Trades Employers points out, what the Government are doing is saying that the nationalised industries' investment can take place only if they generate the funds internally, and that means by raising their prices so that the Government can fiddle the public sector borrowing requirement.
This week the Prime Minister spoke of her determination to squeeze inflation out of the economy. The Government's crazy policy is squeezing inflation into the economy. The Conservative Party has accumulated an amazing record. A

Government who seek to roll back the frontiers of the State are pathetically depending on nationalised industries to bail them out of their failures. A Government who promised to reduce inflation by controlling the public sector borrowing requirement are using it to increase inflation. Two years ago the construction industry was far healthier than it is now. At that time the Secretary of State, then an Opposition spokesman, spoke about the previous Labour Government and said :
by…their policy initiatives, their objectives and their administrative decisions, they have demoralised the construction industry, witnessed a dramatic increase in unemployment in the industry, and managed an inadequate programme of housing. On any of those grounds they would deserve criticism, but on the combinations of all of them, they cannot resist censure."—[Official Report, 21 June 1980 ; Vol. 952, c. 486.]
It is precisely for those reasons that we censure the Government tonight.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): This has been an important debate on an important industry. Economic policy has played an essential part, particularly the level of public expenditure. Underlying Opposition speeches has been the familiar argument that the key to prosperity in the construction industry is more public expenditure and greater public indebtedness.
No period demonstrates more clearly that that argument is false than the period of the previous Labour Government. If there should have been a period when the construction industry boomed as never before and when output increased every year it should have been during the last five years. A British Government have never been so completely addicted to public expenditure as the previous Labour Government. No other British Government have put the country into debt so fast or so furiously. They borrowed £40,000 million. The national debt was doubled. Interest on the national debt trebled. What happened to the construction industry? Far from enjoying its greatest boom, it enjoyed a sustained recession.
In real terms capital expenditure on roads decreased by one-third. Capital spending on schools was halved. Net capital expenditure on housing was also


halved. The previous Labour Government conclusively showed that prosperity for the construction industry and for the national economy cannot be achieved by piling up more debts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Ward) and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) rightly pointed out that prosperity must be built on real economic growth if the construction industry and this country are to get the necessary level of capital investment. That economic growth cannot be built on the illusory prosperity of mountains of debt. That is all that the Labour Party can offer.
When the Labour Party was in office it was more realistic than it is tonight. Nothing makes more interesting reading than the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) when he spoke two years ago in the last debate on the construction industry. He wore the coarsest of hair shirts He tried to defend the 1976 expenditure cuts with all the economic rectitude of a man from the IMF. He said :
This action was considered essential to preserve the economy… There is no short-term palliative which could dramatically increase demand and solve the structural problems of the construction industry any more that there is an easy road to economic regeneration generally in our country."—[Official Report, 2 May 1977 ; Vol. 931, c. 123–31.]
Those were the admirable words of the right hon. Member for Brent, East. No one will be fooled by the short-term palliatives of more public expenditure.
If hon. Members have listened to Opposition speeches, they may be forgiven for thinking that the construction industry has more or less collapsed during the past twelve months. I do not underestimate the difficulties. However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and for Chorley (Mr. Dover) made clear, the picture painted by the Opposition is unrepresentative. What about the value of construction output on maintenance and repair during the past twelve months? It may be said that that value has decreased. However, the value of maintenance and repair work during the past year was higher in real terms than in any 12 months since the Second World War. If one looks at new orders for comer

cial construction in the private sector one sees that during our first year in office they were higher than in all but one year of the previous Government. The same is true of the total value of orders from the private sector. In the last 12 months they have also been higher than in every year of the previous Government except one.
Before the Labour Party gets too carried away with talk about the collapse of the construction industry, it might care to reflect that the value of construction output fell in every year except one while the Labour Government were in office. During the lifetime of the previous Government the numbers of unemployed in the construction industry reached the highest levels ever recorded since the statistics were first collected in 1948. Therefore, it ill-behoves Labour Members to introduce motions about the imminent collapse of the construction industry when their Government put the industry into a state of near collapse for the best part of five years.
We have taken a series of far-reaching steps during the last 12 months to create a fundamentally sounder base from which the construction industry can operate. Instead of hoarding every possible scrap of unused development land in the public sector, we have released it, and there is a great deal of public sector land which can be released. Since we came into office, more than 1,400 acres of development land have been sold by the new town development corporations, by the Commission for the New Towns and by the Housing Corporation. A substantial proportion of more than 3,000 acres of non-agricultural land disposed of by the PSA is capable of development. We are making certain that surplus land is not offered all round the public sector but is released straight away. We are getting rid of the Community Land Act, we have made development land tax fairer and less of a deterrent to construction, we have increased the IDC threshold, we have abolished ODPs and the enterprise zones and the two urban development corporations will create major opportunities for the construction industry.
We have also provided vastly greater statutory scope for housing authorities to promote low-cost home ownership than ever before. The response that we have had from local authorities to our


low-cost home ownership programme has been very encouraging. A total of 90 English authorities have told us that they are promoting various types of "starter hom" schemes. Our low-cost home ownership programme is getting through in some remarkable quarters. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) is not here at present, but I have listened to many of his speeches in recent months and I have the firm impression that his vision of the Elysian fields was a Salford in which every private landlord had bitten the dust and every homeowner had been municipalised so that Salford was a 100 per cent. proof council estate. Perhaps I am doing the hon. Member an injustice, because the other day I picked up a copy of the Manchester Evening News and I saw an arresting headline "Private Homes Plan by Labour Council". I found that the council in question was none other that Salford.
What alternative policies are the Oppo-tion offering for the construction industry? I was interested to read the Labour Party's most recent policy statement

which is entitled "Peace, Jobs, Freedom—How to stop the drift to catastrophe". I have never read any document more certain to generate that catastrophe. That is true about the section on the construction industry. This is what it says :
We will also extend public enterprise to ensure a significant public stake—and a degree of control—in each important industrial sector ; and this will include companies in such sectors as pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, microelectronics, construction and building materials.
And so, once again, it is the age-old policy. The Labour Party is back again on nationalisation of the construction industry. That is the one and only policy that they have. Their economic policy is one of higher and higher public indebtedness, which can only lead to high inflation, high taxation and high bankruptcies. That will be no good for the construction industry. For that reason I ask the House to vote against the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question :—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 294.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Prescott, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Race, Reg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Maclennan, Robert
Radice, Giles
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McNamara, Kevin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tilley, John


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Tinn, James


Maxlon, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Torney, Tom


Meacher, Michael
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Weetch, Ken


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Ryman, John
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sandelson, Neville
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sever, John
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'lon-u-L)
Whitlock, William


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Short, Mrs Renée
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Palmer, Arthur
Snape, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Park, George
Soley, Clive
Wright, Sheila


Parker, John
Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton East)


Parry, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie



Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Straw, Jack
Mr. George Morton.




NOES


Adley, Roben
Chapman, Sydney
Gray, Hamish


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, W. S.
Greenway, Harry


Alison, Michael
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grieve, Percy


Alton, David
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Ancram, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric
Grist, Ian


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Cope, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Critchley, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hannam, John


Beith, A. J
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dorrell, Stephen
Hastings, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hawksley, Warren


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dover, Denshore
Hayhoe, Barney


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Heddle, John


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Henderson, Barry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, James


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Timothy
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, Sir William
Hooson, Tom


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Bowden, Andrew
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bright, Graham
Farr, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brinton, Tim
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Brittan, Leon
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jessel, Toby


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buck, Antony
Freud, Clement
Kershaw, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Fry, Peter
Kilfedder, James A.


Bulmer, Esmond
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Knox, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lamont, Norman


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Goodhart, Philip
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Goodhew, Victor
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Gow, Ian
Lawrence, Ivan


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gower, Sir Raymond
Lawson, Nigel


Channen, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lee, John







Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stanley, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stevens, Martin


Loveridge, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Lyell, Nicholas
Parris, Matthew
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


McCrindle, Robert
Pattern, Christopher (Bath)
Stokee, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Patten, John (Oxford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacGregor, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Penhaligon, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Percival, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


McQuarrie, Albert
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Donald


Major, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Thome, Neil (llford South)


Marland, Paul
Pollock, Alexander
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Porter, George
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyhealh)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trlppier, David


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Trotter, Neville


Mates, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Raison, Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Rathbone, Tim
Waddington, David


Mawhinney, Or Brian
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wakeham, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Renton, Tim
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mellor, David
Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Reddltch)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Mills, lain (Merlden)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wall, Patrick


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
REfkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Mfscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NWI
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, John


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Montgomery, Fergus
Salnsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moore, John
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Hon Peter (City ol Chester)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Mudd, David
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wickenden, Keith


Murphy, Christopher
Silvester, Fred
Wilkinson, John


Myles, David
Sims, Roger
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Neale, Gerrard
Skeet, T. H. H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Needham, Richard
Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Speller, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neubert, Michael
Spence, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Newton, Tony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)



Normanton, Tom
Splcer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Nott, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin
Mr. Spencer le Marchant anil


Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Anthony tlcrry.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to

Division No. 3631
AYES
[10.13 pm


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Antony
Eggar, Timothy


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Elliott, Sir William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butcher, John
Emery, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Hon Adam
Eyre, Reginald


Asplnwall, Jack
Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Farr, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)


Bendall, Vivian
Channon, Paul
Fookes, Misa Janet


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Chapman, Sydney
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Churchill, W. S.
Fox, Marcus


Sevan, David Gllroy
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davlson, John
Clegg, Sir Waiter
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Cormack, Patrick
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Sir Bernard
Costaln, A. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brinton, Tim
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Gray, Hamish


Brittan, Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Greenway, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dover, Denshore
Grieve, Percy


Brooke, Hon Peter
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmund")


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Grist, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Durant, Tony
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh
Gummer, John Selwyn

Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) :—

The House divided : Ayes 218, Noes 8.

Hannam, John
Mellor, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hawksley, Warren
Mill", lain (Meriden)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heddle, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hllls)


Henderson, Barry
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Silvester, Fred


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Moate, Roger
Sims, Roger


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, James
Moore, John
Speed, Keith


Holland, Philip (Carltont
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hooson, Tom
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon Peler (City of Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Myles, David
Steen, Anthony


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Needham, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Jesse!, Toby
Nelson, Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Neubert, Michael
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony
Stradllng Thomas, J.


Joseph, Rl Hon Sir Keith
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Page, John (Harrow West)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Thompson, Donald


Knox, David
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Thome, Neil (llford South)


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Trippier, David


Lang, Ian
Parris, Matthew
Trotter, Neville


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pattern, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
Patten, John (Oxford)
Viggers, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Pattie, Geoffrey
Waddlngton, David


Lee, John
Pawsey, James
Wakeham, John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Percival, Sir Ian
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pollock, Alexander
Wall, Patrick


Lyell, Nicholas
Porter, George
Waller, Gary


McCrindle, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ward, John


Maclarlane, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Warren, Kenneth


MacGregor, John
Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wheeler, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rathbone, Tim
Whitney, Raymond


McQuarrie, Albert
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wickenden, Keith


Major, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilkinson, John


Marland, Paul
Renton, Tim
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Marlow, Tony
Rhodes James, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolfson, Mark


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Mates, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian



Mather, Carol
Rlfklnd, Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant an"


Mayhew, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Anthony Berry.




NOES


Alton, David
Kilfedder, James A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. David Penhaligon.


Home Robertson, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Resolved,

That this House, recognising that a vigorous and profitable construction industry can only grow from a prosperous economy, rejects the failed and discredited prescription of the Opposition and supports the Government in its polices to provide a sound basis for the prosperity of the construction industry.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (DIOCESE IN EUROPE MEASURE)

Queen's consent having been signified—

Mr. William van Straubenzee(Second Church Estates Commissioner): I beg to move,
That the Diocese in Europe Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
If a Minister were moving that a Bill be read the Second time, he would be expected to give a detailed explanation of each clause. The advantage of our procedures, by which Measures such as this are first considered by a Joint Committee of the Commons and another place—the Ecclesiastical Committee—is that we have a report of that distingushed Committee on the Measure. We also have a report from the legislative committee of the General Synod. The House will wish me to say something about what the Measure provides, but it will not be necessary for me to detain the House to give the detail that might be otherwise be necessary.
It might be helpful if I put the Measure into context. The Anglican churches were planted throughout the world and they came to full independence as the years passed. Many of them have found their way to fully independent provinces in their parts of the world. That can be seen in the old Commonwealth countries and in Africa. In some dioceses they have become so isolated that that has not been possible. Sometimes political problems have been associated with the territorial area in which they are situated. We understand the political delicacies affecting a diocese such as Hong Kong.
Other isolated areas have been brought to full independence within a province. There is one in the South Pacific, a province in New Guinea and the Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. That, briefly, is the background to the historic jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in northern and central Europe and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Gibraltar.
Given that background, the problem facing the Church of England was how to

discover the appropriate way forward and how that amalgam should be dealt with in terms of its association with a wider entity. It seemed desirable to bring it within the ambit of wider ecclesiastical unity. The problem was, where? The obvious solution was to associate it with the Church of England in England.
The Measure makes provision for a diocese not of Europe, but a diocese in Europe. The Measure does not create a diocese. It assumes the relinquishment by the Bishop of London of his historic jurisdiction. He has made known his intention so to do. The Measure records the intention of the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise his metro-political jurisdiction over the areas so surrendered and over the areas within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Gibraltar, and from these to create one diocese in Europe.
The Measure provides for representation of the diocese in the General Synod and in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity, it provides, as hon. Members have no doubt seen, for the Church Commissioners to provide for stipends in exactly the same way as is done with the clergy in the Church of England and, incidentally, for their pensions. It also provides, for example, for so human a measure as pensions for deaconesses and lay workers—that matter was before the House not long ago—to apply to such persons in exactly the same way as it does here.
There will be no diocesan synod for the diocese in Europe. It may be that that would in some ways be desirable, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that there would be huge problems of expense in travel and so on. I think that it must be right that the functions of a diocesan synod—those that would be fulfilled in an Anglican diocese in England—will be fulfilled by a bishop's council and standing committee.
Nor will the bishop be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen as are, of course, the diocesan bishops of the Church of England within England. The bishop will be appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London and an episcopal member of the standing committee of the Anglican Consultative Council. For the avoidance of all possible doubt, and to meet a reasonable question that might emerge later, may I say absolutely clearly that the statute law


of this country is so framed that the bishop will not be eligible to sit in another place. The reference for that is the Bishoprics Act 1878, as amended, an Act that I am sure is constantly in the minds of hon. Members.
Let me deal for a moment with what I quite understand could for some be an objection. Is it right, as it will be if the House gives its assent tonight, for someone who is not a British subject to be a member of the General Synod? The General Synod, as we all understand well, not only has its own legislative powers but, though the power is used sparingly, can amend Acts passed by this House. My answer to that is that that is nothing new. Though it may at first seem so, the Measure is not charting new ground in that respect.
Let me give an example. Suppose that there were a Swedish national who had been episcopally confirmed by a bishop in Sweden. The Church of England is in communion with the Church in Sweden. Let us assume, further, that either by residence or by habitual worship that Swedish national is on the electoral roll of the Church of England in England. He is quite clearly, as the law stands, eligible to be on that electoral roll and eligible to be elected to the General Synod. He is wholly eligible to be elected, and there is no requirement that he must, for example, taken an oath of allegiance.
I am, together with one other hon. Member present tonight, a member of the General Synod, and neither of us by virtue of our membership of the General Synod is required to take an oath of allegiance. Nor by virtue of their membership of the General Synod are our clerical brethren. I think, though, that all of them will have taken an oath of allegiance by virtue of some other matter such as their being bishops of the Church of England or having been presented to livings in the Church where that is a requirement.
I found helpful the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee which brought out so clearly that the Church of England does not confine its operations to England and that membership does not depend upon nationality. I hope, therefore, that this Measure will commend itself to the House as a logical, practical and sensible of the work of the Church,

bringing those concerned within the ambit of the larger ecclesiastical unit, giving them the rights of membership of the General Synod which are so clearly set out.
I need detain the House no longer, but with the leave of the House I shall reply to any major points that are raised. I commend the Measure to the House.

Mr. Frank R. White (Bury and Rad-cliffe): Before the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) opened our debate the House had concluded an interesting debate on the problems of the construction industry. I congratulate the hon. Member on directing the thoughts of the House to a very different problem of reconstruction, but an important one none the less.
In the present climate of debate within the Parliamentary Labour Party and in the country as a whole, it is with a little trepidation that one approaches any subject that has a European context. We fear, quite rightly, invoking the wrath and indignation of the pro- and anti-Marketeers. Therefore, I stress that I do not regard this measure as in any way launching the Church of England into the red-hot furnace of the argument about the EEC. Whatever the outcome of the political arguments concerning this country's continued membership of the EEC, the Church of England, as a result of our history and regardless of our future role in Europe, has and will continue to have a role to play in the European Christian community.
The days are long gone when the Continental chaplaincies of the Church of England chiefly served the wealthy and leisured expatriates doing the grand Victorian tour of Europe. The Church serves not only thousands of holiday-makers in growing numbers but business men and British members of international organisations whose families live and are educated in Europe, as well as providing the traditional services to embassy and consular staff. In many places in Europe there are also retired Britons and British widows of local nationals, who place great value on this link with their mother country. As is explained in the report before the House, the mix differs from place to place, but the chaplaincy can be expected to serve a wide cross-section of


people drawn from the wider area of the country in which it is based.
The demand is growing. Just as our resident commercial and industrial involvement in the Continent grows, so does the work of the Church. In January there was a revision of the electoral rolls of the European chaplaincies. There were 8,659 persons on those rolls. There are approximately 200 chaplaincies, of which 96 have resident clergy. Hon. Members may judge the importance of this group of people by comparing them with the 139 benefices in the diocese of Portsmouth or the 143 benefices in the diocese of Bradford.
I do not intend to recount the history of the chaplaincies outside the country ; the hon. Member for Wokingham has already taken us through that. I do not intend to take the House through the historical development of the Anglican chaplaincies from the Order in Council of Charles I in 1633, or the Crown Letters Patent establishing Gibraltar in 1842. Again, the hon. Member has dealt with those points adequately. I will not test the patience of the House by repetition. I trust, however, that I have removed any fears regarding Europeanisation. I merely state that I support the arguments put forward by the Second Church Estates Commissioner about the constitutional issues involved when considering the Measure.
I wish to direct the thoughts of the House to the present, and to what I believe to be the simple basic facts of life about the proposal before us. The House must start by realising that there is an increasing desire from both clergy and laity in the European chaplaincies for a closer association with the Church of England, especially for a share in its synodical institutions. If we put it in terms of an industrial or commercial analogy, management and staff of the European enterprise wish to be given greater job satisfaction and a place on the consultative committees of the corporation in order to enjoy the levels of participation and industrial democracy of other affiliated organisations. That request seems completely understandable, especially when put in those terms. Surely it is unreasonable to expect a growing section of the Church to de denied access to the top tier of decision making. To reject

that desire completely out of hand would be to rebut the very basis of the Church Assembly.
The second basic point that the House must consider is the spiritual work of the Church. Will the Measure promote or detract from that objective? The involvement of Ecclesia Anglicana in Europe goes back centuries, beyond the Reformation, and even beyond the Norman Conquest. I believe that the early Saxon bishops gained a reputation for dogged single-mindedness in what must have been the first Community renegotiation. That involvement is shown in more modern times by the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury through the diocese of Gibraltar.
I believe that in passing the Measure we shall provide positive benefit to the work of the Church in Europe, especially our relationships with other European churches with which we enjoy spiritual communion, and even with those of other Christian fellowships.
I wish to return to a comment that I made when I first spoke in these debates, when I stated that the House should be able to demonstrate serious concern before disagreeing or refusing any Measure passed by the General Synod. I do not say that we must give carte blanche, but we must have deep-held justification before refusing any Measure.
I do not know the record for consultative discussion, but the Measure seems to have experienced a great deal. In 1973 the then Bishop of London initiated a reference to the standing committee of the General Synod of the Church relative to this proposal. In October 1975 the Archbishop of Canterbury presided over a London conference, in which bishops, clergy, committee members and, more importantly, the clergy and laity of European chaplaincies, fully participated. That conference produced an agreed statement, and the proposals contained in the statement were widely discussed in the European chaplaincies, were voted on, and gained the full support of all but two.
In November 1976 the General Synod passed a motion of support and instructed that the necessary legislation be prepared. The prepared document was introduced in the General Synod in February 1979, and it received general


support. It was again discussed on revision in November of that year. In February of this year the Measure was given final approval. Following that, the Ecclesiastical Committee also gave its approval, having decided, after a full scrutiny whatever the concern about some controversial points it was not sufficient to reject the Measure.
The document before us has received the most widespread degree of consultation possible. Despite the reservations of a few, it has received both enthusiastic and overwhelming support. In the light of the results of those consultations, and the subsequent debates in Synod, and bearing in mind the detailed scrutiny of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I support the measure on behalf of the Opposition. I ask the House to give it its full support.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I simply want to say a few words in support of the Measure. I should tell the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) that the Church moves very slowly in these matters. I was involved in discussing a possible diocese of Europe in the late 1960s, when for a number of years I was treasurer of the Commonwealth and Continental Church Society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) will know, we had, and still have, a large number of chaplaincies in Europe, from one end to the other.
I am glad that this Measure has finally reached this stage, and I hope that the Church of England will now press on with it after we pass it. It will give to the Church in Europe a sense of unity and belonging which it perhaps did not have before. For many years, the Church comprised a number of loosely knit chaplaincies. As the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe said, in Victorian days those chaplaincies each had an individual entity of their own, because many English people lived in various places in Europe and the chaplaincies were quite prosperous and full.
That has somewhat changed. Those chaplaincies now have a new role. They have a minimum congregation at certain times of the year and at other times they have a congregation which ought to be increased considerably, and many congregations are, by the influx of holiday

makers. This job can justify a good deal of attention by the Church of England through its societies, including the one with which I am still connected as a trustee, although the name has been changed to the Intercom Society. Other societies in Europe are also involved in this work.
I have always found it strange that we have had the diocese of Gibraltar, yet it is only now that we are coming round to a diocese in the northern part of Europe. It is fascinating that this is happening at a time when Spain is seeking to join the Common Market. I do not know what that will do with regard to our negotiations with Spain over Gibraltar, just at the time when we are making Gibraltar the centre for the new diocese in Europe. Perhaps that is another good reason why we should not hand Gibraltar over to the Spaniards. Equally, it may be the case that the Church, in so far as it has a greater influence in Europe, will be able to advise the Government on how to negotiate with the Spaniards so that we can reach some agreement on this matter.
The fact that it will be called the diocese of Gibraltar in Europe—although it will, in fact, be called the diocese in Europe—gives a new meaning to the words of Christ himself, when He said :
upon this rock I will build my church".
I simply rise to wish the Measure well. It is good that the House should discuss these matters and that some of us at least should take an interest in what the Church is doing. It means that the Church and the State have a real meaning. This latest venture will create a new outpost which will be much closer to us than ever before, both because we belong to Europe and because people now go there in much greater numbers than they have done in the past. That makes this Measure even more important.

Mr. Michael English: It is a little dangerous to quote
super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meant
in the context of a debate about the Church of England, as it is a text that has often been discussed in relation to the Church of which the Church in England—not of England—was once a part. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) distorted history a


little in relation to the Church in England. It is true, I think, that an English missionary became the first Archbishop of Mainz, the principal archbishopric of the Holy Roman Empire and of Germany. That was when there was one church throughout Western Europe. It was long before the Church of England—a somewhat nationalistic enterprise of the sixteenth century—was created.
This Measure is not one that any hon. Member wishes to oppose by vote on the Floor of the House at this time of night, but a few points should be made. It is not as perfect a measure as may have seemed to be the case up to now. It was not immediately approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which held two sessions on the matter. It approved it in principle during the first session, but it redrafted the report in the second session.
It is a slight misfortune that, although the Ecclesiastical Committee is a Joint Committee of both Houses, it is not a Joint Committee in the normal sense in which we use those words. It is not a combination of two Select Committees, following the procedures of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, although it seems to be when one is a member of it. It is set up by statute. The result is that in this report the proceedings of the Committee are not included in the way that they would be included were it a normal Select Committee of the two Houses. That makes it difficult for any hon. Member who was not a member of the Committee to know what happened.
Perhaps I can use the fact that it is sui generis and a statutory creation to talk about the proceedings, because if it were a Joint Select Committee of both Houses I would not be allowed to do so. Although the overwhelming majority of the Committee voted for approval of the measure, nearly everyone who voted for it expressed some reservation. Its title and the title of the diocese is a little odd. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) said, it is to be known in practice as the diocese in Europe. Its official title is the diocese of Gibraltar in Europe. It is nice to be told that Gibraltar is in Europe. But it is even more peculiar if we remember that that includes Morocco and Turkey and, as I understand, it includes the part of

Turkey that is in Asia, as well as Morocco, which is in Africa.
I should like to ask the hon. Member Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) a point in relation to the other diocese included. What does Northern and Central Europe include? In the history of the Anglican Church, at one time Northern Europe included Russia. In the sixteenth century there was an Anglican chapel opposite the Kremlin. I am a little concerned about the question of foreigners being allowed to vote in a law-making institution of the United Kingdom. Does that include Russian citizens? It may well not. But what does Northern and Central Europe include? People from Morocco or Turkey would have indirect rights to elect representatives in the General Synod. That is the essential criticism of this Measure.
I asked a question in the Ecclesiastical Committee, since the Measure adopts a completely opposite principle to that of the European Communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Rad-cliffe said that it does not bring Europe into this issue. He is quite right. It does not do that, because it adopts a highly nationalistic English way of looking at things and does the exact opposite of what the European Commission has proposed in relation to EEC countries. My hon. Friend may recollect that what the Commission has proposed is that everyone throughout Europe should have civil rights and legal rights in the country in which he resides, irrespective of his nationality. That has not happened yet. But it would, for example, enable my hon. Friend, if he happened to be living in Lyons, to vote for the Lyons town council, just as he could vote for, say, the Greater London Council if he happened to live in London, irrespective of whether he was a British or a French citizen.
This is the opposite principle. This says that irrespective of the country of which one is a citizen, and of where one lives, one can vote for people to be elected to the General Synod of the Church of England. In this respect, the General Synod is "in" England as well as "of" it. That is what is odd about it.
What is odd about it really—and this is why this Measure is not worth formally


opposing—is that we should be doing any of this at all. In the sixteenth century we took the legislative power over the Church away from the Pope and gave it partly to Parliament and partly to the Crown. There were arguments between Parliament and the Crown about how to exercise it, but that we can ignore.
Earlier in this century we substantially took those legislative powers away from Parliament except in the ultimate and gave them to the General Synod of the Church of England, as it is now called, under a procedure laid down by statute. All that Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—has left is the right formally to approve or formally to disapprove. But the fact is that what is being done is the law of the land.
If it were just the rules and regulations of the Church it would not matter very much. The General Synod is entirely entitled to decide for itself all that it wishes to decide about the Church of England. The trouble is that that is not what actually happens. The General Synod does not decide for itself. The House of Commons and the House of Lords have to approve, through the procedure of the Legislative Committee and the Ecclesiastical Committee. The reason why they have to approve is not just some sort of ancient tradition or piece of arrogance, or something of that kind. The reason why they have to approve is that the General Synod is almost not limited in any way whatsoever as to what piece of law it can change.
As far as I am aware, the General Synod might well be able, for example, subject to the approval of both the Lords and the Commons, to reverse past history and say that if a person does not belong to the Church of England he cannot become a Member of the House of Commons. It would be capable of changing any Act of Parliament or any piece of legislation. It could do even that, in theory, I think. Of course, we all understand that no one would dream of doing it and that it would have to be approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
But the fact is that it goes far wider than the normal decisions of a normal Church in most of the world. There is an Anglican Church in the United

States—a Church in communion with the Church of England—that will not be electing representatives to the General Synod, unlike the Anglican Churches in Europe and part of Africa and part of Asia, which will. In the United States, the Anglican Church, or Episcopalian Church—whichever one cares to call it ; the one in communion with our Church of England—will make rules and regulations governing itself, its own members, its bishops and its priests. It may even admit women to the priesthood, for example, in a way in which the Church of England will not yet do. That does not mean that it becomes part of the law of the United States of America, or of one of its 50 or so states. In Britain, the General Synod can go beyond that and can amend, reverse, repeal or change an Act of Parliament or regulation. It can change the law of the land.
It would be better to have a Commission to consider that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wokingham played a distinguished part on such a Commission. The General Synod should not need the approval of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords for its actions. On the other hand, it should not have the power to change the law of the land. It should have the power to govern the Church of England alone. If the Roman Catholic Church can govern itself quite successfully in England and other countries without having the power to enact legislation, I should have thought that the Church of England could.
It is peculiar that the Measure is necessary. The complexities of the issue demonstrate that. We may not be setting a precedent, but we are saying that certain people will be added to the General Synod. Those people may or may not be British citizens, and may or may not live in Europe, North Africa, Turkey, and so on. Although the Ecclesiastical Committee did not oppose it, it expressed its views well. In the fourth paragraph on page 4 of the report, it states :
The central objection, it seems to the Ecclesiastical Committee, is that which is expressed in paragraph 21 of the Comments and Explanations in the following terms.
The Committee then quotes from the Church of England statement, which says :
' if the Constitution and the Measure comes into effect for the first time one of the dioceses represented in the General Synod will not be part of the "Established Church" '".


Reverting to the Committee's own words, it says :
The Ecclesiastical Committee have reservations about the way in which this objection is there expressed.
If it is said that the Ecclesiastical Committee approves of the Measure, I must point out that it has probably never disapproved of a Measure. Perhaps I am wrong. The House of Commons and the House of Lords have never disapproved of a Measure, although a Measure was once struck off the Order Paper in this House.
The Ecclesiastical Committee is usually most appreciative of all the Measures put forward. "Reservations"—in the polite language of the Committee—is the nearest that it is likely to come to saying that it would have been better if the Measure had never been introduced. It says :
The Ecclesiastical Committee have reservations about the way in which this objection is there expressed because it might suggest to some readers that the new dioceses would not be part of the Church of England. There can be no doubt that if the new dioceses were created the Church of England would in no sense be the established church in Gibraltar, much less in any other country in Europe, any more than it is at present. It seems to the Committee, however, that the new dioceses would be part of the Church of England though its Bishop, clergy and people would not share fully in the privileges and responsibilities which part of ' the establishment ' was generally understood. In the view of the Committee the objection mooted in paragraph 21 of the Comments and Explanations is in substance one based on territorial considerations. It can be expressed in the proposition that if it is not fitting to accord to representatives of the Church from overseas the right to participate in the General Synod. This proceeds on the footing that, although the Church does extend its operations overseas, the Government of the Church is peculiarly a matter for the United Kingdom, the Church being established by law in England within the fabric of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and within that constitution alone.
It later explains that the Church in America would not have the right to elect people to the General Synod.
Therefore, we are creating a peculiar anomaly. The hon. Member for Wokingham will probably tell me that the anomaly has been about for centuries in one form or another and he will be quite right. Nevertheless, here we are saying that some communities of the Church of England—those who happen to live in Europe, Morocco or Turkey—shall have rights that those who happen to Live in America or anywhere else in the world

shall not have. Those who live in Europe, Morocco or Turkey—described as the diocese in Europe by somewhat doubtful geography—will have the rights of people who live in England in relation to the Church of England, as distinct from people who do not. That is roughly what the Measure says.
It is an anomaly and it would be impossible to describe it otherwise, although it is based on the fact that anomalies have been around for a very long time. But not this one. It is unusual, and we are bound to bring the attention of the public to the fact that for the first time we are allowing a law-making body, the General Synod of the Church of England—perhaps it should not be a lawmaking body, but it is—to be influenced by people elected from outside the United Kingdom, who may be totally unrelated to the United Kingdom in any way except through religion, in which case they are unique compared with other people sharing the same religion in other countries.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) tempts us to follow constitutional arguments which perhaps might detain the House rather longer than it would wish. I hope that British citizens living in Europe will soon have the same opportunity of voting for their representatives in this House as those who are resident in this country. Therefore, it seems increasingly anomalous that the large British community in Brussels is prevented from doing so at present.

Mr. English: Is the hon. Member seriously saying that the proposals of the European Community are reprehensible because they say that every citizen of an EEC country should have the right to vote for the legislature of the country in which he resides, not the country of of which he is a national?

Mr. Sainsbury: The two arguments are not necessarily contradictory. Perhaps both opportunities will be accorded. However, I do not think that it would be right to pursue those constitutional channels at this time.
I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for


Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for his clear and succinct exposition of the Measure, which seemed even more succinct in relation to what followed. In my experience, as a traveller in Europe, I have valued the work of the chaplaincies. Perhaps it is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter now, becaue one of the oldest-established, and perhaps best supported of the Church of England's chaplaincies is that in Venice, where my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is now taking part in an important international meeting.
I support the Measure as I believe that it is a logical and sensible extension of the work of the Church in Europe. It provides an opportunity for those in Europe to participate and be integrated in the general body of the Church.
I ask my hon. Friend five questions in relation to the Measure. First, am I correct in assuming that the bishop would be the person most responsible for seeking to adapt the deployment of the clergy in the diocese to new patterns of tourism and settlement? Reference has been made to members of the Anglican community who live in, retire to or take holidays in Spain. I am reminded of the lines in the ballad of the "Revenge"—namely :
Sink me the ship, Master Gunner—sink her, split her in twain!
Fall into the hands of God, not into the hands of Spain !
I understand that in Spain there are particular difficulties in establishing resident Anglican chaplaincies. Are the deployment of clergy and the negotiations that might be necessary to establish new chap-liancies responsibilities that would be expected to fall to the bishop of the new diocese, or would we expect that still to be negotiated centrally?
Secondly, would there be authority for the diocese to share churches? It seems probable that in the widespread diocese of Europe there would be occasions when churches, which perhaps because of long historical connections are part of the Anglican chaplaincy, could happily be used on other parts of the Sunday, or on other parts of the week, by other Christian communities and vice versa, and where the establishment of an occasional Anglican service could best be done not through establishing a church but by using the

church or chapel of some other community.
Thirdly, I ask about the deployment into Europe of clergy to meet the seasonal demands of tourism. In recent years one of the greatest growth areas of tourism has been skiing. One of the most popular times for families to go skiing is Easter, which is a time when one would hope that all Anglicans would have an opportunity to attend a service. Many of the resorts are close together. It is probable that quite a few Anglican clergymen would be happy to get a break—not of a limb—away from home, enjoy some sunshire. skiing and sun, and have the opportunity to take services in a number of centres during the season.
Would clergy deployed into Europe to meet this demand, who would not be going to regular, established chaplaincies, come under the diocese, or would arrangements be made otherwise?
My fourth question occurs to me because of a connection that I used to have much more strongly with a certain retailing organisation. I recall that there used to be a habit of advertising in London stores the seaside resorts where branches of a particular concern were to be found. Could not the Church do more to make available to tourists, or those who are travelling on business or for any other reason, the locations in Europe where they may find an Anglican church where services are held seasonally or every month? Should there be some sort of central clearing house at which travellers could inquire about the availability of Anglican services?
Finally, I ask about the geographical boundaries of the diocese. Will its area of responsibility extend into the areas where we talk of the Church in chains? It is unfortunate that behind the Iron Curtain the work of every Christian community is appallingly hampered and persecuted. The Protestants faith had one of its earliest firings in Czechoslovakia. It is one of the worst places for the persecution of Christian communities. Will the diocese have responsibility for the establishing and the working of the Anglican community in such areas?
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reply to some of my questions now or at a later stage. I repeat that I support the Measure.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: As the junior member of the Synod in this House, I also should like to welcome and commend the Measure which we have in front of us. I am not afraid of saying that it is, of course, in some sense, an anomalous measure—but the situation itself is anomalous. Here are we, of the Church of England, whose only real claim upon the faithful is that it is, and sees itself as, the Catholic Church of this land. Outside this land it does not have that claim and can in no sense maintain it. However, it has a number of congregations and must meet the needs of those who are Anglicans in this country and who travel or live abroad. It is anomalous, too, in the sense that nobody, in theological or political terms, could justify the curious way in which the Church of England's governance is operated. I hope that no one would seek to justify it. We have to accept that it is as it is because it is.
Therefore, for the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to apply the degree of—I should not like to use a word which was deleterious—scrutiny which might befit the study of a law specifically of this place to something which is actually a Measure designed to meet a situation in which logic does not have a total application is to misplace his usual careful scrutiny.
We are trying to provide for people who happen to be Anglicans in areas where there are not many Anglicans and where they should be part of the Church of England.

Mr. English: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the whole point of my argument? I am not suggesting that the House should have to approve this Measure. I am saying that the General Synod should look after itself in a way similar to, say, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church or the Anglican Church in the United States. If the hon. Gentleman considers the point a little further, will he think of an individual who happens to be in the Anglican communion but who is an American citizen living in America? That person will not have any rights to elect anybody to the General Synod. If he moves to live in, say, Gibraltar and goes to the local Anglican church, I presume—I do not know—that he will suddenly acquire

rights to elect someone to the General Synod. If the same American person moved to Britain, if my recollection serves me right—and I am open to correction by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who is the expert in ecclesiastical law in this House—he would lose those rights again. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) shakes his head. It may be that he would have those rights in England.
The truth of the matter is that an American in America would not have those rights, whereas if he moved to Europe, outside England, he would, under this Measure, acquire them. It seems a little odd.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman proved my point. It seems a little odd because it is a little odd. We have to accept that, because the Church of England, in that sense, is a little odd. It is the result of a long history. We accept that. To make such a fuss about it is to put it right out of the court in which we are discussing the matter.
We must sort out this situation. This is a sensible way to do it. Even the name itself is sensible. "Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe" gets over the problem of saying, in actual legal terms, "Diocese in Europe". We in Britain are in Europe. We are in it geographically and because we are part of the European Community. We are in it for every other reason. The idea, therefore, of having a diocese in Europe in legal terms would be embarrassing. One must welcome this delicate and pleasant way of getting round the problem so as not to embarrass the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the House will recognise that the Church of England in the rest of Europe has a particular duty in furthering unity. I have always been worried about the concept of these little churches, because I think that one of the great privileges of travelling abroad is to join in the living life of the parish of the place, which is actually the indigenous parish. I have experienced a great deal of valuable worship with Roman Catholics in communities where they are the church of the community. I very much hope that it will be taken by this diocese as a special part of its duty to work most closely with the parishes in the place so that we do not make this the kind of divisive body which in the past


and in some areas it has been. I pray that such divisions will not be extended.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sains-bury) on the sharing of churches. It would be splendid if in new circumstances the Anglican parish could worship in the Roman Catholic church at a different time or even at the same time as the Roman Catholics. However, the language may make that difficult. The problem is language. Many people find it easier to worship in the language that they feel for and can understand and use.
In the Church of England we have a unique relationship with the State. It is not justifiable in logic and it would not occur now if we were starting afresh. Our history goes way back beyond the Reformation. We see ourselves as the historic Church of this land and as the Church standing in the apostolic succession from the time of Christ.
We do not want the Measure to suggest that we are setting ourselves up in competition with the Church of God in the countries in which these groups of Anglicans live. We need to provide for their spiritual needs. We do so in great humility. An anomaly of the Measure is that it recognises the sad and scandalous division of the Church. It is a pity that the Church of England has to make provision for Anglicans in other countries of Europe. In so doing we are admitting yet again that we have failed to reach that historic unity for which our Lord prayed and which we are still guilty of not discovering.
I support the Measure with that great reservation. It is another statement of the sad divisions of the Church. I hope that it will be a means of healing and not perpetuating them.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.
I understand the reservations of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). From his careful study of this matter in the Ecclesiastical Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember that there are legal trust reasons for incorporating the name "Gibraltar". I felt that it was a happy compromise to have a diocese that was entitled one thing

but cited another. The definition of the diocese of Gibraltar is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report as being
under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury…and covering Anglican chaplaincies in Southern Europe, Turkey and Morocco".
The historic jurisdiction of the Bishop of London at present includes Russia in Europe, which will pass to this diocese in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) asked five questions. First, I believe that the bishop of this new diocese when it is set up will have the ability to take cognisance of the new patterns of tourism. I am happy to remind my hon. Friend that there are a number af chaplaincies already in Spain, which will pass to the new diocese.
It is important to state—and here I pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer)—that this is not a proselytising operation, and none of us would wish it to be. It is bringing the Church into closer fellowship with the Church of England in England and giving it an organisational link. It is not a hostile, proselytising operation.
My hon. Friend asked about the sharing of churches. There is nothing in the Measure that makes that more difficult. There are a number of cases where it already happens, and it also happens the other way round. That ties in with a telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye, because at Strasbourg the list of chaplaincies includes one that worships in the Eglise des Pères Domin-caines. That is a good example of how it works the other way round, and I sense that it is the feeling of the House that it hopes that, in appropriate circumstances, that will be extended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove also asked about the deployment of the clergy seasonally. I speak as a layman, but I should have thought that the fact there is the bishop and his suffragan and small contingent of clergy and laity in the General Synod would assist that process. It is so often done by contact and discussion.
As to the advertising of services, I remember when I needed to know what services were held in Switzerland and what chaplaincies were available. I did


not find it difficult to obtain a leaflet. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me gently to pull his leg. Having a financial mind, I wondered whether there might be a great emporium—I have no name in mind—that might come into partnership. It could have its name on one part of a leaflet and we could have the services on another.

Mr. English: Does the hon. Gentleman mean Marks and Spencer?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove asked me about the geographical boundaries. I hope that I have already answered that question.

Mr. English: If the Measure is passed, an Anglican communicant in, say, Gibraltar will have the right to elect some representatives in the General Synod. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), when talking about disunity among Churches, seemed to be referring to Anglicans who live in Roman Catholic countries. What is the position of an Anglican who lives in a Protestant country? Would an Anglican communicant in Aberdeen, for example, have a right to elect representatives in the General Synod of the Church of England?

Mr. van Straubenzee: We must be clear that we are talking about those who are elected to serve in the General Synod from the diocese. Of course, those in Gibraltar take part with others but they do not do it alone. Those in the diocese may be living in countries that are predominantly Protestant or Catholic or in countries that predominantly do not have a Christian bias. I do not think that it is a major problem.

Mr. English: What about Aberdeen?

Mr. van Straubenzee: We are dealing with the diocese in Europe.

Mr. English: And Aberdeen is not in Europe?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Aberdeen is in Europe, but it is not within the area covered by the diocese in Europe.

Mr. English: But Morocco is?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Morocco is, and I do not think that our friends in Aberdeen would find it helpful to be equated with Morocco.
I hope that I have explained the Measure sufficiently so that the House may feel able to give its assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Diocese in Europe Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,

That the Standing Order of 26 June 1979 relating to the nomination of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments be amended, by leaving out Mr. Barry Porter and inserting Mr. Christopher Murphy.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

HOUSING (PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK AREA)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Matthew Parris: I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), is to reply to the debate. We remember with pride and pleasure the visit he paid to West Derbyshire last year. I am grateful to him for giving up his time this evening. I know that he is a busy man.
Both my hon. Friend and I have had the pleasure of sitting through an ecclesiastical debate. That was a new experience for me. I wonder whether, when our Lord wandered through those piles of stones in Palestine, had He realised that this would be the outcome, He would have given up and gone home. It was extraordinary.
If you should ever go into orbit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and look down on England from an altitude in which all is indistinguishable save the blurred patches of light formed by the great cities and populous zones, my constituency would appear as a blot of soft and friendly darkness, totally encircled by light—the lights of Manchester, Bradford and Leeds, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham, Burton, Birmingham. Stoke and, not far away, Liverpool. Half the population of Britain lives more or less within


60 miles of an area of spectacular rural beauty. Much of my constituency forms a large part of the Peak District national park.
To the industrial centres of Yorkshire, Lancashire and the Midlands it is almost, writ large, what Hyde Park is to London. Most of Britain can conveniently spend weekends in West Derbyshire. On a sunny bank holiday, it sometimes seems that most of Britain does.
Market forces would have covered most of the Derbyshire hills with breeze-block bungalows years ago. The Peak park planning board exists to stop that. It is hard to get permission to build within the national park and pretty difficult in the surrounding rural areas. The criteria employed discriminate particularly against low-cost, high-density housing. Hon Members will realise why.
The scarcity of supply contrasts with a demand, swollen hugely by the ranks of would-be weekenders or commuters from the surrounding cities. Some of them will pay anything. To them, a stone hovel is a desired country cottage. The effect is to drive prices to levels that belong to another world from that in which my constituents live. In the villages, the bottom rung of the housing ladder has been removed from them. A few weeks ago, in the little village of Froggatt, in my constituency, a quarter of an acre of land, with building permission only for a bungalow, was auctioned for £20,500.
These inflated prices do not stop at the confines of the national park but spread outwards into the surrounding districts. I have made a study this week of the principal estate agents and building societies in the district. I am informed that the cheapest, modern starter homes, for which 90 per cent. mortgages are available, vary in price between the £20,000 mark in Wirksworth and figures approaching £30,000 in the national park itself.
Older properties are mortgageable only if improved and in good repair. Even then, only 80 per cent. mortgages will be available. Prices are lower, but there is little below £15,000 in the towns or £20,000 in the villages. One will need savings of £2,000 or £3,000 and a home loan of between £12,000 and £20,000 before anything comes within reach in

West Derbyshire. A young man must earn upwards of £6,000 or his wife, if she works, must earn £2,000 for every £1,000 that his earnings fall below £6,000.
A great many of my constituents are not so lucky. To establish the level of wages, I contacted 20 of the principal or typical employers in the constituency from the Hope Valley cement works just north of the constituency to Nestlé and Charcon Products in the south. In each case, I asked what a young man at the lower end of the wage scale could expect to earn before tax. Expressed as an annual figure, there are two broad bands. Textile, catering, banking, clerical and agricultural workers straddle both sides of the £3,000 mark. Other workers, mainly blue collar, start at £3,500 but fall mostly between £4,000 and £5,000. None reaches £6,000.
This was not a proper statistical exercise, It was simply to find out whether many young would-be house owners in my constituency would be unable to afford to buy their own house. It showed that a great many could never hope to buy. In the villages, the position is desperate. Prices are ludicrous. One either already owns, lives with Mum and Dad, inherits, gets a council house or gets out. Increasing numbers of people get out.
Our council house waiting list, though it is at 1,000 and has doubled recently, does not show the thousands who do not hang around but take themselves to the waiting lists of London and the industrial Midlands, where bed-sitters can be found, the wages are higher, prices are lower and one does not have to have a car.
In and around the national park are all the trappings of a low-wage economy without the compensating low prices. To afford to live in West Derbyshire, many find that they must work elsewhere. To work in West Derbyshire, many find that they must live elsewhere. It is sad, but not surprising, that people have become bitter and that in the villages resentment is sometimes misdirected towards the incomers who are seen as being responsible for breaking up local families. I cannot emphasise too strongly the depth, intensity and unanimity of feeling amongst my constituents on this issue.
To hon. Members who might remind me of my party's commitment to market


forces, I say that that commitment, rightly, overlooks the planning function of the national park. That is the interference with the free market which has distorted house prices upwards. If I ask for a little State assistance, it is only to mitigate the effect of this primary intervention. We need it, but it has its casualties. Its casualties are my constituents.
I do not believe that the problem is soluble. Certainly it is not soluble by the Government. However, we can help a little at least in the hardest cases. In general, we can provide an impetus and direction which might be helpful. I shall outline the way forward as I see it, as the West Derbyshire district council sees it and as my hon. Friend the Minister might see it. Some members of the Labour Party on the local council might not concur with me about council house sales. I respect all points of view. I am surprised at how much agreement is possible.
The days of huge new public housing projects are over. West Derbyshire realises that. Most of our housing stock is saleable and much of it, particularly in the larger urban estates, can and should be sold to willing tenants, not just for this generation but for future generations of would-be householders. That would create thousands of bottom and middle rungs on the owner-occupied housing ladder. I welcome it.
In the villages, it should be policy to retain at least some hold over the small and highly desirable estates. The Government initially proposed to help by allowing the council, under clause 18 of the Housing Bill, to restrict subsequent resales by tenants who had bought to people who had lived or worked in the region. Any definition of the region which includes its principal cities drives a coach and horses through the clause. Any definition which excludes them drives a coach and horses through our country geography.
Because it was anxious about that, the district council delayed the implementation in advance of the Housing Bill until it was settled, although that was not on my advice. We were grateful that the Government listened to our anxieties and amended the clause to permit a condition of sale which allows the council first refusal at market prices on any resales within 10 years. We hope that that will help,

particularly in villages with acute housing problems, to keep places available for local people. But it will be expensive and must be used discriminatingly.
The main drift of housing policy in West Derbyshire must be towards special housing for special needs, particularly for the elderly. West Derbyshire realises that. The Minister visited the district last year and saw a fine example of the sheltered housing that we are providing at Victoria Court, Matlock. By offering a comfortable alternative to elderly people, we can release private and public housing suitable for families on to the market and provide more bottom and middle rungs for young families.
We need more Victoria Courts. The council planned an exciting new housing project at Darley Dale which was a joint private development of low-cost starter homes for first-time buyers, to which reference was made earlier this evening. In stimulating and assisting private ventures, we do much to bring back those bottom rungs, but the council must be able to provide incentives or it will be easier and more profitable for developers to go for high-cost, low-density housing projects.
I turn to adaptation and improvement for invalids and disabled people. Very often, quite apart from humanitarian purposes, it can save money to keep an individual or a family in their house by helping them to cope with the onset of illness, age or the birth of a disabled child as opposed to the enormously expensive cost of institutionalisation.
I saw a particularly heart-rending case in a town called Wirksworth in my constituency where a little girl with, I think, hydrocephalus was hoping that the council would be able to help with the installation of a downstairs lavatory. It was just the kind of thing that she needed and just the kind of thing that would keep her out of institutional care. It would be cheap at the price. But this argument is commonplace, and I do not think that hon. Members need persuading of its truth.
There are improvement grants in general improvement areas whereby we can bring into the area of the mortgageable exactly the kind of property that could be within the means of the low-paid, first-time buyer. Again, I think that the argument is commonplace and I need hardly develop the point.
I have run briefly over the area that I believe we should be recommending to a housing authority like mine as a right future field for its activities. I have indicated that it does not need persuading. I shall return to that point, but first I shall complete my catalogue of ways in which we can help by turning quickly to the private sector.
We have almost no private rented sector in West Derbyshire. We need one. I believe that the shorthold tenure provisions of the Housing Bill enabling landlords to let on fixed terms with certainty of repossession at the end of the term will bring new lettings on to the market. I certainly hope that they will.
I also welcome the provisions for equity sharing which are aimed at those with exactly the problem faced by many of my constituents—that is, the inability to raise the whole of the sum needed. However, it will take time for the idea to catch on, because, although demand is there, I think that supply will be longer in organising itself.
I said that the problems are most acute in our villages, of which there are about 60. Four starter homes of a type designed to appeal to young local couples, rather than to weekenders in search of something quaint, in each of those villages would go further towards solving the problem than Governments commonly ever get in pursuing solutions. Less than 50 acres would be involved, and the planning authorities have the power to permit and specify.
The spin-off in terms of the viability of village post offices, schools and transport is immeasurable. But here we run straight into the Peak park planning board and the county structure plans. Nobody talks about quotas, but the figure set in the national park plan for new housing in the villages is being approached faster than anticipated. I do not complain about that.
The board has been right and human to respond to pressure, but it means that sooner or later we must either have a freeze or have a progressive stiffening of resistance to the granting of permissions. That means that applicants will be processed on criteria other than the intrinsic merit of the application, such as the date on which the application is made. That

cannot be right and will increase the already formidable problem faced by the board in its relations with local people.
Like the phases of the planets, and with equal mystery, there will be auspicious and inauspicious periods for making planning applications to the Peak park planning board. I cannot even begin talking to the board about housing. It will simply throw the structure plan at me, as it is bound to do. I do not ask my hon. Friend to reply to this point tonight beyond acknowledging it, but I should like him to refer it to his right hon. and hon. Friends for further discussion.
I now return to West Derbyshire district council's housing department. There has been a muddle between the district council and my hon. Friend's Department over this year's housing investment programme financial ceiling. The delayed announcement of central Government cuts seems to have meant that the council was not scared off its financial commitment for which the Department had issued loan sanctions but which the council could not include on its HIP application until contracts had been entered into. By the time that the council was ready to apply, it was too late. Tenders had already been accepted.
Inside many hon. Members there is a housing official struggling to get out. I am not one of them. I have no idea who is to blame for this muddle, and I have little interest in seeing the apportionment of blame. On the question of whether West Derbyshire has been disingenuous or naive, I am inclined to think that it has had too little guile rather than too much.
I do not ask my hon. Friend to adjudicate or even to comment in any detail. A muddle there has been, and I ask him instead to look at the results, which I shall summarise to the House.
The financial commitments to which I referred are the Parwich and Carsington schemes, small schemes for village housing which cannot now be stopped. The HIP allocation is £1·8 million. Financial commitments already made by the council soak up the remainder of that money. The council has, therefore, frozen everything else. That is, specifically, all further ventures, including the Darley Dale project and all sheltered housing projects.


That also includes all new council mortgages, all improvement grants and general improvement areas, all adaptations for the invalid and disabled, and improvement schemes to the older post-war council estates, except for schemes already started.
My hon. Friend will have leapt ahead of my argument to anticipate its conclusion. The effect of this muddle has been to freeze the council into the very engagement with public sector housing from which it is Government policy that we should disengage ourselves. Improvement grants and general improvement areas were to revitalise the public sector at the bottom end. The Civic Trust had just persuaded the Abbey National building society to give mortgage preference in the GIA in Wirksworth.
Adaptations for the infirm keep them out of institutions. Helping the elderly unlocks their previous housing. Council improvements and mortgages increase saleability and sales. New starter homes launch poorer young people into home ownership. I need not develop the point.
It is clear that I must give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary time to reply. I do not ask for a detailed reply. I ask simply for the assurance that he will ask the officials in his Department again to discuss sympathetically with my council the special and pressing problems this year and in future years in West Derbyshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) for his kind words. I certainly enjoyed my visit to Matlock last year and the opening ceremony that I performed at Victoria Court.
I am certainly interested to hear from my hon. Friend about the problems of housing in West Derbyshire, and I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the special problems which arise because the West Derbyshire district council and the Peak District national park overlap. When I visited that area last autumn, my hon. Friend mentioned that fact to me. I pay tribute to the careful way in which he represents the views of both his local authority and his constituents.
I understand that about two-thirds of the district lies within the Peak park, which is administered for planning purposes by the Peak park joint planning board. I am told that the only West Derbyshire town lying within the Peak park, is Bakewell but that the other towns and larger settlements of the district, which are Matlock, Matlock Bath, Ashbourne and Wirksworth, all lie just outside the Peak park.
In reaching his decision about the proposed housing policies contained in the approved structure plan for the park, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was conscious of the need to halt the decline in population by making sufficient provision for those for whom the park was a natural home and place of work together with some provision for inward migration to achieve a balanced age structure. For these reasons, my right hon. Friend modified the plan to increase the proposed scale of provision for housing in the West Derbyshire parts of the park. It remains, however, a very modest provision and, as is appropriate in a national park, the policies of the approved structure plan for development control generally confine new housing development to the larger settlements and mainly restrict it to a scale, design and location appropriate to the existing character of the settlements.
Because of the desirability of this area as a place to live—and I certainly understand that—pressures for the acquisition of available houses and building land are inevitably very heavy, both from people working further afield and choosing either to commute from the area or use houses there as weekend homes and from people wishing to settle in the area on retirement. Pressure of demand is, as my hon. Friend demonstrated very starkly, inevitably reflected in prices.
The local authority is, of course, very much aware of this problem, and in an excellent paper called "Housing Strategy for West Derbyshire 1979–86" it set out a number of policies to meet it. These include the identification in local plans of pieces of land for house building at higher than average densities to provide for lower-priced housing, the initiation of building-for-sale schemes in areas where new, lower-priced housing is unlikely to become available in the normal way


through the private sector, and the continuation of its policy of making provision for local authority mortgages and of making full use of the building society support scheme. It also intends to make provision for married and engaged couples joining the council house waiting list and to give high priority to improving the supply of public sector housing for those groups within the national park. In adopting these policies, the authority recognised one of the salient points of the Government's housing policy—namely, the need to look to the private sector to make a major contribution to solving its housing problems.
We have asked local authorities to encourage the development of starter homes, to release land, to participate with the private sector in partnership schemes for the provision of low-cost housing for sale and to help in channelling loan finance to those unable to obtain a mortgage in the usual way. Those and other measures, such as the acquisition of existing empty and rundown houses for improvement and sale and different forms of shared ownership, were discussed with the authority at a meeting in April between its officers and staff from our regional office.
The main problem is one of finance. The total housing capital allocation for 1980–81 had to be reduced because of the urgent need to curb public expenditure, which our predecessors had allowed to run wild. For West Derbyshire, that meant that the 1980–81 allocation of £1·84 million was 71 per cent. of its 1979–80 allocation, at a common price base, and 42 per cent. of its bid. Making that money go round became much more of a problem than would otherwise have been the case because two tenders for a total of 29 new dwellings, which would involve significant expenditure falling in 1980–81, were accepted by the authority in January 1980 before the 1980–81 allocations were notified to it.
That additional committee expenditure in 1980–81 has to be met out of an allocation which is less than it hoped to receive. I am bound to point out that the authority had been warned as early as November 1979 that its 1980–81 allocation was likely to be less than in previous

years and that it would be well advised to refrain from entering into further commitment until it knew the details.
It is undeniable that that limits the authority's opportunities for further direct action in the present financial year. However, I hope that it will continue to do all that it can to enlist the support of the private sector in the provision of low-cost housing suitable for younger local people. Bearing in mind the opportunities for augmenting housing capital allocations for 1981–82 onwards by sums equivalent to either 50 per cent. or in some instances 100 per cent. of its housing capital receipts, the authority should be in a better position to implement further policies to alleviate the problem next year.
All the funds available for HIPs this year have been distributed, so there is no prospect of an additional allocation. I have sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend about the muddle that took place. All that I can say to him is that I have noted that point.
As regards the points that my hon. Friend raised with me about the difficulties of housing because of the interaction of the national park in his area, I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who look after the difficult problems of planning boards in national parks. I shall ensure that they see what my hon. Friend has said, and I shall ask them to consider whether there is anything that they can suggest that will be of help to his constituents during the coming year.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the calm way in which he painted the picture as he saw it. I understand the difficulties that have beset a cautious and well-run local authority. I have noted that, and the matter will not be overlooked. I hope that what I have said will, at least, have shown my hon. Friend that the Department understands his problems, those of his local authority and, perhaps most of all, the problems of his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Twelve o'clock.